'  till 

1 1 

1 

it:';. 

HI 
1 

1       1 

Ml 


lilWl 

llliillli 


Columbia  tHniberfiitp 

in  t\}t  Citp  of  iSetn  gorfe 


LIBRARY 


LETTERS 


TO   THE 


RT.  REV.  JOHN  HUGHES, 


flOMAN  CATHOLIC  BISHOP  OF  NEW  YORK. 


BY 


EIEST    SERIES. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
PRESBYTERIAN  BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION, 

NO.  265  CHESTNUT  STREET. 


PKOM  THE  LIBUAPvY 
/  OF 

PROFESSOR  IIE^:T7V  A.  TOnn 

WOV  2  5  1925. 


Entered,  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1851, 

By  a.   "W.   Mitchell,   M.  D. 

In  the  Office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Eastern 

District  of  Pennsylvania- 


'   O 


dGS 


CONTEJS^TS. 


Page 
Introductory  Note  ....  ,       .  5 

LETTER  l.,\ 
The  writer's  respects  to  the  Bishop 7 

LETTER  IL 

Canses  of  early  misgivings — Priestly  miracles — Purgatory — Praying  to 
saiata .        .        .        ,      t3 

LETTER  in. 

OnTJses  of  early  misgivings,  continued — Ck>nfession — Holy  wdls — Pro- 
hibiting the  Bible — An  incidet'. 19 

LETTER  IV 

Transition  from  Papery  to  Infidelity — Inquiry  awakened — Abstinence 
from  meats — The  Mass — Confession — Transubstantiation — Religion 
vanishes 30 

LETTER  V. 

Popery  makes  the  masses  superstitions,  the  intelligent  infidels — Who  go 
to  confession  1 — Ireland — France — Other  countries — Reasons  why 
Popery  debases — The  days  of  Popery  numbered  ...      37 

LETTER  VI. 

Popery  has  degraded  Ireland — Evidences  of  its  degradation — Absen- 
teeism— Sub-letting — Tithes — The  priest's  cry  for  money  .         .      45 

LETTER  VII. 

Reasons  for  not  returning  to  the  papa!  church — Prohibition  of  the 
Scriptures — The  way  and  manner  of  papal  worship — Ceremonial  law 
of  popery — Obstructions  raised  between  God  and  the  soul        .        .      53 


17  CONTENTS. 

LETTER  VIII. 

Farther  reasons  for  not  returning  to  the  papal  chnrch — Celibacy  of  tha 
clergy — Auricular  confessions — A  call  on  Irish  papists  to  assert  their 
rights 61 

LETTER  IX. 

Reasons  which  prevent  from  returning  to  the  papal  church,  continned 
— Purgatory — Transubstantiation ,        .      69 

LETTER  X. 
Is  the  Church  of  Rome  a  Church  of  Christ  ? 78 

LETTER  XI. 

The  effects  of  Popery  on  Liberty,  Knowledge,  Happines*,  Tree  re- 
ligion        89 

LETTER   XII. 
GoDclostoii  of  the  whole  roottx .96 


INTRODUCTOKY  NOTE. 


The  pages  that  follow  were  written  in  the  form 
of  letters  to  Bishop  Hughes,  that  they  might  readily 
gain  the  attention  of  those  for  whose  benefit  they 
are  designed.  The  writer  is  a  gentleman  who  has 
never  taken  any  part  in  the  Romish  controversy, 
but  having  been  educated  in  the  Church  of  Rome, 
by  parents  of  that  faith,  and  having  remained  in 
that  communion  until  mature  years  and  patient 
thought  enabled  him  to  judge  for  himself,  he  be- 
came calmly  but  decidedly  convinced  that  he  must 
leave  it,  and  seek  the  religion  of  the  Bible  among 
Protestants. 

In  these  pages,  the  result  of  his  own  experience 
and  observation,  he  gives  the  reasons  that  compelled 
him  to  abandon  the  church  of  his  fathers,  and  the 
reasons  why  he  cannot  return  to  her  embrace.  The 
letters  are  written  with  great  courtesy,  frankness 
and  ability,  with  the  sprightly  humour  of  an  Irish- 
man to  an  Irishman,  and  with  an  eloquence  and 
earnestness  that  often  remind  us  of  some  of  the  most 
celebrated  passages  from  the  Irish  bar.     They  were 

1* 


6  INTRODUCTORY    NOTE. 

first  published  in  the  New-York  Ohserver,  and  were 
thence  widely  copied  into  other  papers.  They  have 
been  extensi\ely  sought  for  by  Catholics  who  are 
beginning  to  inquire  after  the  truth,  and  by  others 
who  wish  to  put  them  into  the  hands  of  those  who 
are  willing  to  read. 

The  temper  of  the  letters  commends  them  to  a 
candid  perusal,  and  the  clearness  of  the  argument 
and  illustration  will  carry  conviction  to  the  minds 
of  those  who  have  the  independence  to  decide  for 
themselves  by  the  light  of  the  Bible  and  common 
sense. 

The  letters  were  furnished  to  me  under  an  in- 
junction of  secrecy  as  to  the  Author's  name,  and 
having  been  requested  by  many  individuals  and 
societies  to  give  them  to  the  public  in  a  form  for 
preservation  and  further  circulation,  it  is  proper  to 
say  that  the  writer's  character  is  an  abundant 
guarantee  for  the  fidelity  of  all  the  matters  of  fact 
here  stated,  and  that  he  is  prepared  to  maintain 
them  if  they  should  ever  be  called  in  question. 

SAMUEL  I.  PRIME 


KIRWAK'S  LETTERS 

TO  THE 

RIGHT    REV.    JOHN    HUGHES, 

BISHOP  OF  NEW  YORK. 


LETTER  I. 

My  dear  Sir, — Although  an  entire  stranger  to 
you,  I  have  felt  for  many  years  greatly  interested 
in  your  history  and  doings ;  and  for  the  following 
reasons  : 

You  are  the  chief  pastor  of  a  very  important  por- 
tion of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  this  country; 
and  your  ecclesiastical  position  makes  you  empha- 
tically a  public  man.  If  a  bishop  in  Mexico  or 
Missouri,  like  many  mitred  priests,  you  might  live 
unknown  to  fame ;  but  as  the  papal  bishop  of  the 
C*ommercial  Metropolis  of  the  Western  world,  and 
of  the  most  populous  and  wealthy  diocese  of  your 
church  in  the  United  States,  this  could  not  be  ex- 
pected. Position,  you  know,  has  much  to  do  with 
our  public  character. 

But  in  addition  to  your  position,  which  is  one  of 
high  influence,  you  possess  the  requisite  qualifica* 


8  kirwan's  letters 

tions  to  fill  ii.  This  is  confessed  by  your  most 
ardent  opponents.  By  your  genius,  learning,  and 
eloquence — by  your  sleepless  devotion  to  the  duties 
of  your  calling,  you  have  obtained  a  position  in  the 
very  first  rank  of  the  ecclesiastics  of  your  church. 

Besides,  at  whatever  odds,  you  have  fought  like 
a  man  with  all  your  opponents.  In  controversies 
religious  and  political,  you  have  not  shunned  the 
hall  of  debate,  nor  discussion  through  the  press. 
You  have  taken  your  positions  adroitly,  and  you 
have  defended  them  with  remarkable  skill.  And 
even  when  convinced  of  the  utter  fallacy  of  your 
positions  and  defences,  I  have  yet  sympathized  with 
your  manly  firmness.  It  is  in  human  nature  to 
respect  the  man  that  with  an  earnest  soul  contends 
for  what  he  esteems  right.  And  I  must  confess 
that  as  to  some  things,  when  the  public  voice  was 
against  you,  your  course  met  with  my  approbation. 

Besides,  if  public  rumour  is  worthy  of  belief,  you 
have  forced  yourself  into  your  present  position  by 
the  force  of  your  talents  and  character,  from  a 
social  position  comparatively  humble.  To  me  this 
is  not  the  least  of  the  reasons  why  I  have  felt  in- 
terested in  your  career.  The  men  of  our  race  have 
been  what  is  commonly  called,  self-made  men.  The 
heroes  in  history  have  been  nearly  all  such.  It 
requires  high  attributes  both  of  mind  and  soul  to 
rise  above  the  disadvantages  of  family  and  fortune ; 
and  to  take  precedence  of  those  who  would  fain 
believe  that  birth  and  wealth  give  a  patent-right  to 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  .    9 

the  high  places  of  influence.  Your  past  history, 
unless  I  misunderstand  it,  must  have  had  a  liberaliz- 
ing influence  upon  you.  You  must  look  at  things 
on  a  larger  and  wider  scale,  and  through  a  clearer 
medium,  than  if  you  had  been  cradled  in  crimson, 
and  educated  in  a  convent.  You  know  the  dis- 
tinction between  prejudice  and  principle — between 
what  is  entitled  to  belief,  and  what  we  have  been 
educatea  to  believe — between  what  is  truly  reason- 
able, and  what  is  only  ecclesiastically  so.  And  I 
therefore  address  myself  to  you  with  a  confidence 
far  stronger  that  what  I  shall  say  kindly  and  truly, 
will  be  kmdly  and  truly  weighed,  than  if  I  ad- 
dressed myself  to  a  priest  from  Maynooth  or  St. 
Omers,  educated  merely  in  the  literature  of  legends 
and  liturgies,  and  whose  mind  only  possessed  what 
was  distilled  into  it  from  others.  I  shall  address 
you  not  merely  as  a  priest  or  bishop ;  but  as  a 
high-minded  and  well-educated  gentleman. 

Permit  me  to  say  that  there  is  yet  another  /eason 
why  1  have  felt  interested  in  your  career.  You 
were  born  in  Ireland,  that  land  of  noble  spiiits  and 
of  warm  hearts — that  sweetest  isle  of  the  ocean. 
And  so  was  I.  We  are  natives  of  the  same  soil. 
And  although  in  principle,  by  education,  and  in  all 
my  feelings,  thoroughly  American,  yet  I  take  a 
great  pride  in  tne  high  achievements  of  native 
Irishmen.  America  has  had  its  Montgomerys,  its 
Clintons,  its  Emmetts,  its  Porters,  from  Ireland.  Its 
sons  have  adorned  the  bar,  the  bench,  the  pulpit, 


10  kirwan's  letters 

the  army,  the  navy,  the  legislatures,  the  Congress 
of  these  United  States.  That  there  are  multitudes 
from  Ireland  who  are  no  loss  to  their  own  country, 
nor  any  advantage  to  this,  cannot  be  denied.  The 
reasons  for  this  I  may  examine  hereafter.  But  yet 
we  have  many  fine  illustrations  of  Irish  genius, 
character  and  valour,  all  along  our  history.  And  I 
have  regarded  yourself  as  one  of  them,  so  far  forth 
as  genius  and  force  of  character  are  concerned. 
And  I  have  often  pointed  you  out  as  an  illustration 
of  the  high  respectability  which  Irish  character  is 
capable  of  attaining  when  relieved  from  the  burdens 
that  oppress  and  debase  it.  Hence  I  have  regarded 
as  your  eulogy  the  sneers  of  those  who  have  ad- 
dressed you  as  "  John  Hughes  the  Gardener." 
Such  taunts  come  not  from  true  men. 

Having  said  so  much  in  reference  to  you,  permit 
me  now  to  say  a  word  in  reference  to  myself.  I 
have  just  statea  that  I  was  born  in  Ireland.  I  may 
say  to  you  in  addition,  that  I  was  bom  of  Roman 
Catholic  parents,  and  received  my  early  education 
in  the  full  faith  of  that  church  at  whose  altars  you 
now  serve  with  such  distinguished  ability.  I  was 
baptized  by  a  priest — I  was  confirmed  by  a  bishop 
— I  often  went  to  confession — I  have  worn  my 
amulets, — and  I  have  said  my  Pater  Nosters  and 
my  Hail  Marys,  more  times  than  I  can  now  enu- 
merate. When  a  youth  none  excelled  me  in  my 
attention  to  Mass,  nor  in  the  performance  of  the 
penances  enjoined  by  the  Father  confessor.     And 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  1\ 

whatever  were  my  occasional  mental  misgivings, 
1  remained  a  true  son  of  the  church  until  I  had 
nearly  reached  the  years  of  manhood.  Then,  on 
as  full  an  examination  of  the  subject  as  I  could 
give  it,  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that  I  could  not 
remain  a  Roman  Catholic.  I  first  became  an  in- 
fidel. Knowing  nothing  of  religion  but  that  which 
was  taught  me  by  parents  and  priests,  and  thinking 
that  that  was  the  sum  of  it,  when  that  was  rejected, 
infidelity  became  my  only  alternative.  Subse- 
quently, by  the  reading  of  the  Bible,  and  by  the 
grace  of  God,  I  was  led  to  embrace  the  religion  of 
the  Gospel.  That  religion  I  have  now  for  many 
years  professed,  and  in  connection  with  a  Protestant 
church.  Unlike  many  who  have  left  your  commu- 
nion, I  have  never  bitterly  assailed  it.  I  am  utterly 
unknown  in  the  list  of  the  champions  of  Protestant- 
ism versus  Popery.  But  yet  some  recent  occur- 
rences have  induced  me  to  break  a  long  silence, 
and  to  state  in  a  series  of  letters  addressed  to  your 
Right  Reverence,  the  reasons  which  induced  me 
to  leave  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  which 
prevent  me  from  returning  to  it.  Of  these  letters, 
this  is  the  first.  I  ask  of  you  for  them  a  kind  and 
candid  perusal. 

With  great  respect,  yours, 

KiRWAN. 


12  kirwan's  letters 

LETTER  II. 

Oanses  of  sarly  misgivings — Priestly  miracles — Purgatory — Praying  to  sninta. 

My  dear  Sir, — In  my  last  letter  I  stated  to  you 
that  I  was  born  of  Roman  Catholic  parents — that  I 
was  baptized  and  confimed  in  your  communion — and 
that  for  many  years  I  have  been  in  connection  with  a 
Protestant  church.  I  stated  that,  whatever  were  my 
occasional  mental  misgivings,  I  remained  a  true  son 
of  the  church  until  I  had  nearly  attained  the  years 
of  manhood ;  and  that,  then,  on  as  full  an  examina- 
tion of  the  subject  as  I  could  give  it,  I  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  I  could  not  remain  a  Roman  Catholic. 
Permit  me  in  the  present  letter  to  state  to  you  the 
causes  of  my  early  misgivings  as  to  yours  being  a 
true  church,  and  as  to  its  holding  the  true  faith. 

You  know  very  well  the  common  belief  among 
the  Irish  peasantry  that  Papal  priests  can  work  mira^ 
cles.  Whatever  may  be  the  teaching  of  the  priests 
themselves  upon  the  point,  such  is  the  belief  of  the 
people,  a  belief  strongly  encoui'aged  by  the  conduct 
of  their  spiritual  leaders.  Hence  in  diseases,  the 
people  resort,  not  so  much  to  the.  physician,  as  to  the 
priest — they  depend  less  upon  the  power  of  medi- 
cine than  upon  that  of  priestly  charms.  Although 
the  son  of  intelligent  parents,  and  educated  from  my 
youth  for  the  mercantile  profession,  the  miraculous 
power  of  the  priest  is  yet  associated  with  my  earliest 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  13 

recollections  of  him.  And,  as  you  know  full  well, 
fJie  belief  that  this  power  is  possessed  by  their  priests. 
Is  one  of  the  leading  causes  why  the  Papal  Irish 
l)ow  with  such  entire  and  unmanly  submission  to 
them. 

In  my  youth  there  were  two  things  which  greatly 
shook  my  faith  in  the  possession  of  this  power.  There 
resided  not  far  from-  my  parental  residence  a  priest, 
whose  fame  as  a  miracle- worker  was  known  all  over 
the  county  in  which  he  resided.  The  road  to  his 
house  (called  in  that  country  a  bridle  road)  went  by 
our  door.  I  frequently  saw,  in  the  morning,  indi- 
viduals riding  by,  with  a  little  keg  resting  before 
them  on  the  saddle,  or  a  jug  hanging  by  the  horse's 
side.  I  often  asked  who  they  were,  and  where  they 
were  going  ?  I  was  told  that  they  were  going  to 
Father  C.'s  to  ^et  some  of  their  sick  cured.  I  asked 
what  was  in  the  keg,  or  jug  ?  I  was  told  that  it  was 
Irish  whiskey  to  pay  the  priest  for  his  cures.  I 
asked  why  they  went  so  early  in  the  morning  ?  I 
was  answered  that  unless  they  went  early  they  would 
not  find  him  sober. 

In  one  of  the  large  interior  towns  of  Ireland  where 
I  resided,  the  bishop  of  the  diocese  met  his  priests, 
or  a  part  of  them,  once  a  year.  This  meeting  was 
always  held  in  the  house  where  I  resided,  and  ever 
the  store  in  which  I  was  then  a  clerk.  Among  the 
priests  that  always  met  the  Bishop  was  a  Father  B., 
whose  fame  as  a  miracle-worker  was  extensive. 
He  had  also  a  reputation  for  learning  and  eloquence ; 

2 


14  KIRWAN  S    LETTERS 

and  because  of  his  connection  with  an  old  and 
wealthy  family,  exerted  a  wide  social  influence.  He 
always  staid  with  us  when  he  came  to  town.  About 
ten  o'clock  one  niglit,  after  one  of  those  meetings 
of  bishop  and  priests,  I  went  out  to  shut  up  the  store 
windows ;  and  hearing  a  singular  noise  in  the  gut- 
ter, I  went  forward,  and  assisted  a  man  out  of  the 
mire.  I  soon  recognized  it  to  be  Father  B.  the  mira- 
cle worker.  Running  in,  I  announced  with  some 
excitement  to  the  lady  of  the  house  that  Father  B. 
was  drunk  in  the  street.  I  received  for  my  pains  a 
stunning  slap  on  the  side  of  the  face,  with  this  ad- 
monition, "  never  say  again  that  a  priest  is  drunk." 
I  staggered  under  the  blov/, — I  assisted  in  cleaning 
off  his  R,everence.  I  gave  him  his  brandy  next 
morning.  And  young  as  I  was,  my  faith  in  miracle- 
working  priests  was  effectually  shaken.  Although 
fearing  to  draw  the  conclusion,  I  felt  it,  that  God 
would  not  bestow  miraculous  power  upon  those  who 
lived  a  life,  not  of  occasional,  but  of  habitual  intem- 
perance. And  I  would  ask  you,  sir,  whether  all 
this  pretension  to  miraculous  power  by  your  priests 
is  not  a  gross  imposition  upon  the  people  for  the 
double  purpose  of  keeping  them  in  awe,  and  getting 
their  money  ?  Let  the  Bishop  be  silent,  and  tlie 
man  of  sense  speak,  and  I  have  no  fear  as  to  the 
answer. 

The  doctrine  of  Purgatory,  you  know,  sir,  is  one 
of  the  peculiar  and  most  cherished  doctrines  of  your 
church.     Indeed  I  do  not  know  how  your  church 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  15 

could  get  along  without  it.  My  object  now  is  net  to 
reason  with  you  about  it,  nor  to  controvert  it ;  but 
to  state  to  you  a  few  facts  in  reference  to  it  that 
made,  in  early  life,  a  strong  impression  on  my  mind. 
You  know  that,  in  Ireland,  the  custom  of  the  priest 
is,  at  a  certain  point  in  the  service  of  the  mass,  to 
turn  his  back  to  the  altar,  and  his  face  to  the  people, 
and  to  read  a  long  list  of  the  names  of  deceased 
persons  whose  souls  are  in  purgatory,  and  to  offer 
up  a  prayer  for  their  deliverance  from  it.  This  is 
done,  or  used  to  be  done,  in  the  chapels  on  every 
Sabbath.  To  obtain  the  name  of  a  deceased  rela- 
tive on  that  magic  list,  the  priest  must  be  paid  so 
much  a  year,  varying,  I  believe,  with  the  ability  of 
the  friends  to  pay.  If  the  yearly  payment  is  not 
made  when  due,  the  name  of  the  person  is  erased 
from  the  list.  A  circumstance  arising  out  of  this 
custom  of  your  church,  occurring  in  my  boyhood,  is 
distinctly  before  me.  A  respectable  nian  in  our 
parish  died  in  mid-life,  leaving  a  widow  and  a  large 
family  of  children  to  mourn  his  loss.  True  to  her 
religious  principles,  and  to  her  generous  instincts, 
the  widow  had  her  husband's  name  placed  on  that 
list,  and  heard,  with  pious  gratitude,  his  name  read 
over  from  Sabbath  to  Sabbath,  with  a  prayer  offered 
for  the  deliverance  of  his  soul  from  purgatory. 
After  the  lapse  of  two  or  three  years,  on  a  certain 
Sabbath,  the  name  of  her  husband  was  omitted  from 
the  list.  The  fact  filled  her  with  mingled  joy  and 
fear ;  joy,  thinking  that  her  husband  had  escaped 


18  kirwan's  letters 

from  purgatory ;  and  fear,  lest  she  had  done  some- 
thing to  olTend  liie  priest.  On  timid  inquiry,  she 
learned  that  his  soul  was  yet  in  purgatory,  but  that 
she  had  forgotten  to  send  in  the  yearly  tax  at  the 
time  it  was  due.  The  tax  was  promptly  paid,  and 
the  name  was  restored  on  the  next  Sabbath.  With 
this  fact,  sir,  I  am  entirely  conversant;  for  that 
widow  was  my  own  mother,  who  sought  the  release 
of  the  soul  of  my  father  from  purgatory.  Can  you 
wonder,  sir,  that  this  incident  made  a  deep  impres- 
sion upon  my  youthful  mind,  or  that  it  shook  my 
faith  in  your  whole  system  ?  And,  as  far  as  memory 
serves  me.  Father  M.  was  an  amiable  man,  and 
above  the  ordinary  level  of  the  men  of  liis  calling. 
Another  fact  which  early  impressed  me  in  refer- 
ence to  purgatory  was  this.  Your  church  makes  a 
distinction  between  mortal  and  venial  sinners.  The 
former  go  to  hell  for  ever — the  latter  go  to  purgatory, 
*'  whence  they  are  taken  by  the  prayers  and  alms 
offered  for  them,  and  principally  by  the  holy  sacri- 
fice of  the  m.ass."  Now  I  always  saw  that  the 
most  mortal  sinners,  that  every  body  would  say  went 
to  liell,  could  always  have  masses  said  for  them  as 
if  they  went  to  purgatory  ;  provided  their  friends 
could  pay  ;  and  that  less  mortal  sinners,  that  people 
would  say  went  to  purgatory,  were  sent  to  hell,  if 
their  friends  could  not  pay  for  masses  for  them. 
And  their  souls  were  kept  in  purgatory  for  a  long 
while  when  their  friends  paid  promptly  every  year ; 
but  their  souls  were  soon  prayed  out  whose  friends 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  17 

could  not  pay  long  for  them.  Facts  like  these,  sir, 
very  early  impressed  my  mind,  and  shook  my  faith 
in  the  religion  of  my  parents  and  priests.  And 
when,  in  maturer  years,  I  could  more  fully  consider 
them,  they  led  me  to  reject  religion  as  a  fable  cun- 
ningly devised  by  priests. 

Again  ;  to  pray  to  angels  and  saints  is  a  doctrine 
of  your  church.  I  am  quite  familiar  with  your  ex- 
planations of  it ;  with  the  distinctions  which  your 
writers  make  to  free  it  from  idolatry.  It  is  precisely 
the  distinction  which  the  heathen  make  to  get  rid  of 
the  same  charge.  Perhaps  ere  these  letters  are  con- 
cluded I  may  return  to  this  subject;  I  have  only  to 
do  now  with  some  of  my  early  impressions  in  refer- 
ence to  it.  In  our  parish  chapel  there  were  a  great 
many  pictures  of  saints.  Wliose  picture-s  they  were 
I  do  not  remember.  But  on  Sabbath  morning,  an 
hour  before  mass,  I  have  often  seen  the  poor  people, 
and  even  some  more  wealthy  and  refined,  going  on 
their  knees  from  the  one  picture  to  the  other,  ahd 
counting  their  beads,  and  bowing  before  them  with 
external  acts  of  the  most  profound  and  sincere  wor- 
ship. Although,  then,  I  thought  differently,  I  have 
not  now  a  doubt  but  that  it  was  idolatry.  But  the 
idea  that  struck  me  was  this :  here  are  some  pray- 
ing to  Peter,  or  Paul,  or  John ;  the  same  pictures 
are  hung  up  in  ten  thousand  chapels  all  over  the 
world,  and  in  all  these  chapels  persons  are  praying 
to  them.  Can  these  good  saints  hear  but  in  one 
place,  or  can  they  hear  all  ?     If  they  can  hear  all, 

2* 


18 

then  they  are  omnipresent, — if  omnipresent,  they 
are  gods.  Thus  we  have  as  many  gods  as  saints. 
But  if  they  hear  but  in  one  place,  then  nine  thou- 
sand nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  out  of  the  tea 
tJioueand  are  praying  to  an  absent  saint !  This  one 
tliought,  reverend  sir,  very  early  in  life  impressed 
my  mind,  and  was  not  the  least  powerful  among 
the  causes  which  led  me,  eventually,  to  reject  the 
autliority  of  your  church.  More  of  these  causes  in 
my  next. 

With  great  respect,  yours, 

KiRWAN. 


LETTER  III. 

Caoscs  of  early  misgivings,  continued — Confession — Holy  wells — Prohibit- 
ing the  Bible — An  incident. 

My  dear  Sir, — In  my  last  letter  I  commenced  a 
statement  to  you  of  the  causes  which,  in  early  life, 
caused  my  misgivings  and  distrust  as  to  yours 
being  a  true  church,  and  as  to  its  hoklinsr  the  true 
faith.  I  referred  to  some  incidents  connected  with 
the  claims  of  your  piiests  to  miraculous  power,  with 
the  doctrine  of  purgatory,  and  with  praying  to  tho 
saints.  I  shall  now  proceed  with  a  statement  of 
some  more  of  those  causes. 

The  doctrirs  of  Confession  is  one  of  the  primary 
■ioctrines  of  your  church.     It  requires  every  good 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  19 

papist  to  confess  his  si.is  to  a  priest  at  least  once  a 
year.  If  any  sins  are  concealed,  none  are  forgiven. 
This  doctrine  makes  the  bosom  of  the  priest  the 
repository  of  all  the  sins  of  all  the  sinners  of  his 
parish,  who  make  a  conscience  of  Confession.  And 
this  is  one  of  the  sources  of  the  fearful  power  which 
your  priests  have  over  your  people.  And  with  this 
doctrine  of  Confession,  is  connected  the  power  of 
the  Father  Confessor  to  grant  Absolution  to  the  con- 
fessing penitent.  It  is  sometimes  affirmed,  and 
then  denied,  to  suit  circumstances,  that  the  priest 
claims  such  power.  But  Dr.  Challoner  in  his 
*'  Catholic  Christian  Instructed,"  Chap.  9th,  asserts 
this  power,  and  on  what  he  deems  scriptural  autho- 
rity. And  I  never  knew  an  individual  who  came 
from  Confession,  with  the  privilege  of  partaking  of 
the  Communion,  who  did  not  feel  and  believe  that 
his  sins  were  forgiven  him.  And  if  they  were  not 
immediately  forgiven,  they  would  be  on  the  per- 
formance of  the  prescribed  penances.  You,  sir, 
will  not  say,  that  I  either  misstate  or  misrepresent 
the  doctrine. 

Now  for  some  of  my  early  impressions  upon  this 
subject.  Father  M.  held  frequently  his  confessions 
at  our  house.  He  sat  in  a  dark  room  up  stairs  with 
one  or  more  candles  on  a  table  before  him.  Those 
going  to  Confession  followed  each  other  on  their 
knees  from  the  front  door,  through  the  hall,  up  the 
stairs,  and  to  the  door  of  the  room.     When  on© 


30  kirwan's  letters 

came  out  of  the  confessing-room  another  entered. 
My  turn  came — I  entered  the  room,  from  which  the 
light  of  day  was  excluded,  and  howed  myself  before 
the  priest.  He  made  over  me  the  sign  of  the  cross, 
and  after  saying  something  in  Latin,  he  ordered  me 
to  commence  the  detail  of  my  sins.  Sucn  was  my 
fright  that  my  memory  soon  failed  in  bringing  up 
past  delinquencies.  He  would  prompt  me,  and 
ask,  did  you  do  this  thing,  or  that  thing  ?  I  would 
answer  yes,  or  no.  And  when  I  could  say  no  more 
he  would  wave  his  hand  over  me  and  again  utter 
some  words  in  Latin,  and  dismiss  me.  Through 
this  process  I  often  went,  and  never  without  feeling 
that  my  sins  were  forgiven.  Sins  that  burdened 
me  before,  were  now  disregarded.  The  load  of 
guilt  was  gonQ.  And  I  often  felt,  when  prompted 
to  sin,  that  I  could  commit  it  with  impunity,  as  I 
could  soon  confess  it  and  secure  its  pardon.  And 
this,  sir,  is  the  fearful  and  fatal  effect  of  your  doc- 
trine of  Confession  and  Absolution  upon  millions  of 
minds. 

The  questions  however  often  came  up — Why  does 
the  priest  go  into  a  dark  room  in  the  daytime  ? 
Why  not  speak  to  me  in  English,  and  not  in  Latin  ? 
How  can  he  forgive  sin  ?  What,  if  my  sins,  after 
all,  are  not  forgiven  ?  And  I  always  found  that  { 
could  play  my  pranks  better  after  confession  than 
before,  for  I  could  go  at  them  with  a  lighter  heart. 
Very  early  in  life  my  confidence  in  this  doctrine 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES  21 

of  Confession  was  shaken ;  and  at  a  later  period  I 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  a  priestly  device 
to  ensnare  the  conscience,  and  to  enslave  men. 

Another  thing  which  made  early  a  deep  impres- 
sion on  my  mind  was  tliis.  On  my  first  remem- 
bered journey  to  Dublin  we  passed  by  a  place, 
called,  unless  I  mistake,  St.  John's  Well.  It  is,  as 
you  know,  one  of  the  "  Holy  Wells,"  of  Ireland. 
There  was  a  vast  crowd  of  poor-looking  and  dis- 
eased people  around  it.  Some  were  praying,  some 
shouting ;  many  were  up  in  the  trees  which  sur- 
rounded it.  All  these  trees  were  laden,  in  all  their 
branches,  with  shreds  of  cloth  of  every  possible 
variety  and  colour.  I  inquired  what  all  this  meant. 
I  was  told :  "  This  is  St.  John's  Well,  and  these 
people  come  here  to  get  cured."  But  what  do 
those  rags  mean,  hanging  on  the  trees  ?  I  was  told, 
that  the  people  who  were  not  immediately  cured, 
tied  a  piece  of  their  garments  on  some  limb  of  the 
trees,  to  keep  the  good  Saint  of  the  Well  in  mind 
of  their  application.  And  judging  from  the  number 
of  pieces  tied  on  the  trees,  I  inferred  that  the  number 
that  went  away  cured  were  veiy  few.  I  had  pre- 
viously read  some  travels  in  Africa  describing  some 
of  the  religious  rites  of  the  sable  sons  of  that  con- 
tinent ;  and  the  thought  that  those  performed  around 
St.  John's  Well  were  just  like  them,  occurred  to 
me.  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  the  rites  witnessed 
in  my  youth  are  performed  there  yet — that  the  rags 
of  diseased  persons  are  now  streaming  from  those 


22  kirwan's  letters 

trees  to  remind  the  Saint  of  the  requests  of  those 
who  suspended  them.  There  was  always  a  priest 
present  to  hear  confovssions,  dud  to  receive  the 
pennies  of  the  poor  pilgrims.  And  the  impression 
then  made  upon  my  mind  was,  that  it  was  a  piece 
of  paganism.  And  the  rites  and  ceremonies  about 
this  Well,  I  learn,  are  nothing  in  comparison  with 
those  performed  at  the  Wells  of  Saint  Patrick  in  the 
County  Down.  I  will  here  insert  an  account  of  a 
festival  at  St.  Patrick's  Well  as  given  by  an  eye- 
witness. 

"  When  or  how  the  custom  which  I  shall  describe 
originated,  I  know  not,  nor  is  it  necessary  to  inquire  ; 
but  every  midsummer  eve  thousands  of  Roman 
Catholics,  many  from  distant  parts  of  the  country, 
resort  to  these  celebrated  holy  wells  to  cleanse  their 
souls  from  sin,  and  clear  their  mortal  bodies  of  dis- 
eases. The  influx  of  people  of  ditferent  ranks,  for 
some  nights  before  the  one  in  which  alone,  during 
the  whole  year,  these  wells  possess  this  power  (for 
on  all  other  days  and  nights  in  the  year  they  rank 
not  above  common  draw-wells),  is  prodigious :  and 
their  attendants,  hordes  of  beggars,  whose  ragged 
garments,  if  once  taken  off,  could  not  be  put  on 
again  by  the  ingenuity  of  man,  infest  the  streets  and 
lanes,  and  choose  their  jodgings  in  the  highways  and 
hedges.  Having  been  previously  informed  of  I  he 
approach  of  this  miraculous  night,  and  having  made 
ourselves  acquainted  with  the  locality  of  the  wells, 
early  in  the  evening  we  repaired  to  the  spot :  we 
had  been  told  that  we  should  see  something  quite 
new  to  us,  and  we  met  with  what  scarcely  was  credi- 
ble on  ocular  evidence.     The  spot  on  which  this 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  23 

scene  of  superstitious  folly  was  exhibited,  was  admi- 
rably adapted  to  heighten  every  attendant  circum- 
stance of  it ;  the  wonderful  wells,  of  which  there 
are  four,  being  situated  in  a  square  or  patch  of 
ground,  surrounded  by  steep  rocks,  which  reverbe- 
rated every  sound,  and  redoubled  all  the  confusion. 
The  couD  d'oBii  of  the  square  on  our  approach  pre- 
sented  a  tioating  mass  of  various  coloured  heads,  and 
our  ears  were  astonished  with  contused  and  mingled 
sounds  of  mirth  and  sorrow,  of  frantic,  enthusiastic 
joy,  and  deep  desponding  ravings.  On  descending 
into  the  square  we  found  ourselves  immediately  in 
the  midst  of  innumerable  groups  of  these  fanatics, 
running  in  all  directions,  confusedly,  in  appearance, 
but  methodically,  as  we  afterwards  found  in  reality  ; 
— the  men  and  the  women  were  barefooted,  and  the 
heads  of  all  were  bound  round  with  handkerchiefs. 
Some  were  running  in  circles,  some  were  kneeling 
in  groups,  some  were  singing  in  wild  concert,  some 
were  jumping  about  like  maniacs  at  the  end  of  an 
old  building,  which,  we  were  told,  was  the  ruins  of 
a  chapel  erected,  with  several  adjacent  buildings,  in 
one  miraculous  midsummer's  night  by  the  tutelary 
saint  of  the  wells,  of  whose  talent  as  a  mason  they 
give,  it  must  be  confessed,  no  very  exalted  opinion. 
When  we  had  somewhat  recovered  from  the  first 
surprise  which  the  (to  us)  unaccountably  fantastic 
actions  of  the  crowd  had  given  us,  we  endeavoured 
to  trace  the  progress  of  some  of  these  deluded  vota- 
ries through  all  the  mazes  of  their  mystic  penance. 
The  first  object  of  them  all  appeared  to  be  the  ascent 
of  the  steepest  and  most  rugged  part  of  the  rock,  up 
which  both  men  and  women  crawled  their  painful 
way  on  their  hands  and  bare  knees.  The  men's 
clothes  were  all  made  so  as  to  accommodate  their 


C4  kirwan's  letters 

knees  with  all  the  sharpness  of  the  pointed  rock  ; 
and  the  poor  women,  many  of  them  young  and  beau- 
tiful, took  incredible  pains  to  prevent  their  petticoats 
from  affording  any  defence  against  its  torturing  as- 
perities.    Covered  with  dust  and  perspiration,  and 
blood,  they  at  last  reached  the  summit  of  the  rock, 
where,  in  a  rude  sort  of  chair  hewn  out  of  tl  e  stone, 
sat  an  old  man,  probably  one  of  their  priesthood, 
who  seemed  to  be  the  representative  of  St.  Patrick, 
and  the  high-priest  of  this  religious  frenzy.     In  his 
hat  each  of  the  penitents  deposited  a  half-penny,  al\er 
which  he  turned  them  round  a  certain  number  of  times, 
listened  to  the  long  catalogue  of  their  offences,  and 
dictated  to  them  the  penance  they  were  to  undergo 
ar  perform.      Then    they   descended   the   rock  by 
another  path,  but  in  the  same  manner  and  posture, 
equally  careful  to  be  cut  by  the  flints,  and  to  suffei 
as  much  as  possible  :  this  was,  perhaps,  more  painful 
travelling  than  the  ascent  had  been — the  suffering 
knees  were  rubbed  another  way — every  step  threat- 
ened a  tumble ;  and  if  any  thing  could  have  been 
lively  there,  the  ridiculous  attitudes  of  these  de- 
scenders would   have    made  us  so.      When   they 
gained  the  foot  of  the  hill  they  (most  of  them)  be- 
stowed a  small  donation  of  charity  on  some  miserable 
groups  of  supplicants  who  were    stationed   there. 
One  beggar,  a  cripple,  sat  on  the  ground,  at  one 
moment   addressing   the    crowd    behind    him,    and 
swearing  that  all  the  Protestants  ought  to  be  burnt 
out  of  the  country,  and,  in  the  same  breath,  begging 
the  penitents  to  give  him  one  half-penny  for  the  love 
of  ^  swate  blessed  Jasus.^     The  penitents  now  re- 
turned to  the  use  of  their  feet,  and  commenced  a 
running  sort  of  Irish  jiggish  walk   round   several 
calms  or  heaps  of  stones  erected  at  different  spaces : 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES  25 

this  lasted  for  some  time.  Suddenly  they  would 
prostrate  themselves  before  the  cairn  and  ejaculate 
Rome  hasty  prayers,  as  suddenly  they  would  rise  and 
resume  their  mill-horse  circumrotation.  Their  eyes 
were  fixed ;  their  looks  spoke  anxiety,  almost  despair ; 
and  the  operation  of  their  faculties  seemed  totally 
suspended.  They  then  proceeded  to  one  end  of  the 
old  chapel,  and  seemed  to  believe  that  there  was  a 
virtue,  unknown  to  us  heretics,  in  one  particular 
stone  of  the  building,  which  every  one  was  careful 
to  touch  with  the  right  hand ;  those  who  were  tall 
did  it  easily  ;  those  who  were  less,  left  no  mode  of 
jumping  unpractised  to  accomplish  it.  But  the  most 
remarkable,  and  doubtless  the  most  efficient  of  the 
ceremonies,  was  reserved  for  the  last ;  and  surely 
nothing  was  ever  devised  by  man  which  more  for- 
cibly evinced  how  low  our  nature  can  descend. 
Around  the  largest  of  the  wells,  which  was  in  a 
building  very  much,  to  common  eyes,  like  a  stable, 
all  those  who  had  per.'Drmed  their  penances  were 
assembled,  some  dressing,  some  undressing,  many 
stark  naked.  A  certain  number  of  them  were  ad- 
mitted at  a  time  into  this  holy  well,  and  there  men 
and  women  of  every  age  bathed  promiscuously 
without  any  covering.  They  undressed  betbre  bath- 
ing, and  performed  the  whole  business  of  the  toilet 
afterwards  in  the  open  air,  in  the  midst  of  the  crowd, 
without  appearing  sensible  of  the  observations  of 
lookers-on,  perfectly  regardless  of  decency,  perfectly 
dead  to  all  natural  sensations.  This  was  a  strange 
sight,  but  so  nearly  resembling  the  feast  of  lunatics, 
that  even  the  voluptuary  would  have  beheld  it  with- 
out any  emotions  but  those  of  dejection.  The  pen- 
ance having  terminated  in  this  marvellous  ablution, 
the  penitents  then   adjourned  either  to  booths  and 


f^  KIRWAN^S    LETTERS 

tents  to  drink,  or  join  their  friends.  The  air  then 
rang  with  musical  monotonous  singing,  which  be- 
came louder  with  every  glass  of  whisky,  finishing 
in  frolicsome  debauch,  and  laying,  in  all  probability 
the  foundation  for  future  penances  and  more  thorough 
ablutions.  No  pen  can  describe  all  the  confusion,  no 
description  can  give  a  just  idea  of  the  noise  and  dis- 
order which  filled  this  hal/oived  square,  this  theatre 
of  fanaticism,  this  temple  of  superstition,  of  which 
the  rites  rival  all  that  we  are  told  of  in  the  East.  The 
minor  parts  of  the  spectacle  were  filled  up  with 
credulous  mothers,  half  drowning  their  poor  children 
to  cure  their  sore  eyes  ;  with  cripples  who  exhibited 
every  thing  that  has  yet  been  discovered  in  de- 
formity, expecting  to  be  washed  straight,  ai.-  to 
walk  away  nimble  and  comely. 

"  The  experience  of  years  had  not  shaken  their 
faith ;  and  though  nobody  was  cured,  nobody  went 
away  doubting.  Shouting  and  howling  and  swear- 
ing and  carousings  filled  up  every  pause,  and  '  threw 
o'er  this  spot  of  earth  the  air  of  hell.'  1  was  never 
more  shocked  and  struck  wdth  horror ;  and  perceiv- 
ing many  of  them  intoxicated  with  religious  fervour 
and  all-potent  whisky,  and  warming  into  violence 
before  midnight,  at  which  time  the  distraction  was 
at  its  climax,  I  left  this  scene  of  human  degradation 
in  a  state  of  mind  not  easily  to  be  described.  The 
whole  road  from  the  wells  to  the  neighbouring  town 
was  crowded  with  such  supplicants  as  preferred 
mortal  half-pence  to  holy  penance.  The  country 
around  was  illuminated  with  watch-fires ;  the  de- 
mons of  discord  and  fear  were  abroad  in  the  air ; 
the  pursuits  of  the  world,  and  the  occupations  of 
the  peaceful,  appeared  put  a  stop  to  by  the  per- 
formance of  ceremonies,  disgraceful  when  applied 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES.  27 

to  propitiate  an  all-compassionate  Divinity,  whon\ 
these  religionists  were  determined  and  taught  to  con- 
sider jealous  rather  than  merciful.  I  wish  it  were  in 
my  power,  without  insincerity,  to  pay  a  compliment 
to  the  Irish  Catholic  clergy.  On  this  occasion  they 
were  the  mad  priests  of  these  Bacchanalian  orgies ; 
ihe  fomenters  of  fury ;  the  setters-on  to  strife  ;  the 
mischievous  ministers  of  the  debasement  of  their 
people,  lending  their  aid  to  plunge  their  credulous 
congregations  in  ceremonious  horrors."* 

Now,  sir,  can  you,  as  a  man  of  high  intelligence, 
regard  these  things  in  any  other  light  than  as  the 
merest  impostures  to  delude  the  ignorant  ?  And 
what  epithet  sufficiently  expressive  of  abhorrence 
can  we  apply  to  the  priesthood  who  thus  impose  upon 
a  credulous  people  ? 

I  well  remember  yet  another  of  these  impostures. 
When  a  boy  I  often  heard  that  on  the  morning  of 
Easter  Sunday,  the  sun  miirht  be  seen  dancing:  in 
the  heavens  and  in  the  chapels,  to  express  its  joy  on 
the  anniversary  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  And 
I  often  wished  to  be  where  I  could  witness  the  phe- 
nomenon. It  took  place  in  a  certain  chapel,  and  in 
the  presence  of  many  pious  and  admiring  beholders. 
An  unbeliever  in  priestly  miracles  was  present,  who 
traced  up  the  dancing  of  the  sunbeams  through  the 
chapel  to  an  individual  managing  concealed  mirrors, 
so  as  to  produce  the  wonderful  effect !  Of  this  1 
heard ;  and  although  it  seemed  incredible,  yet  it 

•  McGavin's  Protestant,  p.  403 


88  kirwan's  letters 

made  an  impression  on  my  mind.  The  probability 
of  the  imposture  cannot  be  doubted  by  those  who 
know  that  the  earth  which  covers  the  grave  of  Father 
Sheely  (who  was  convicted  of  treason,  and  hung  in 
the  County  of  Tipperary),  when  boiled  in  milk, 
cures  a  variety  of  diseases. 

The  Bible,  with  all  its  notes  and  glosses,  as  pub- 
lished by  the  authority  of  your  own  church,  is  de- 
nied by  you  to  be  a  complete  rule  of  faith.  On  this 
question  I  will  not  now  enter,  only  so  far  as  to  say 
that  this  denial  holds  a  very  intimate  connexion  with 
its  virtual  withholding  from  the  people.  If  not  a 
complete  rule,  it  may  lead  astray  ;  and  as  it  is  capa- 
ble of  opposite  interpretations,  in  some  of  its  passa- 
ges, the  souls  of  the  people  must  not  be  endangered 
by  its  general  circulation.  It  is  better  to  know 
nothing  of  the  Bible,  than  in  some  particulars  to  mis- 
interpret it !  Your  infallible  church  teaches  both 
ways  on  a  variety  of  subjects,  and  among  the  rest, 
on  the  circulation  of  the  Bible.  It  allows  it  in  Pro- 
testant countries,  with  some  stringent  regulations ; 
it  virtually  forbids  it  in  purely  Papal  countries. 
How  many  Bibles  could  your  Reverence  procure  in 
Spain,  Portugal,  Naples,  or  Italy  ?  How  many 
Spaniards  or  Italians  have  ever  read  a  Bible  through  ? 
How  many  of  the  Irish  peasantry  that  can  read  and 
write  have  ever  read  ten  chapters  of  it  ?  Now,  sir, 
for  years  together  I  sat  daily  at  table  with  a  Catholic 
priest,  who  was  a  member  of  the  family,  and  the 
curate  of  the  parish  ;  and  I  never  saw  a  Bible  used 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  29 

in  the  family.  I  never  heard  at  table,  or  in  the 
morning,  or  in  the  evening,  a  religious  service. 
The  numbers  of  the  Douay  Bible  published  by  sub- 
scription in  Folio,  were  taken  in  the  family,  but  never 
read.  And  not  only  so,  but  I  never  heard  a  sermon 
preached  in  a  Catholic  chapel  in  Ireland  ;  nor  a 
word  of  explanation  on  a  single  Christian  topic,  doc- 
trine, or  duty.  And  before  I  was  sixteen  years  of 
age  I  never  read  a  chapter  in  the  word  of  God, 
whilst  in  other  respects  my  education  was  not  neg- 
lected. I  often  asked  the  meaning  of  this  thino-  and 
the  other  ;  but  there  was  no  explanation.  Nor  can 
one  out  of  one  thousand,  in  Papal  countries,  give  a 
single  reason  for  one  of  your  peculiar  doctrines  or 
duties.  And  since  in  the  maturity  of  my  judgment 
I  have  examined  this  matter,  I  have  greatly  com- 
mended your  wisdom  in  withholding  the  Bible  from 
the  people  ;  if  I  were  a  bishop  or  a  priest  of  your 
church  I  would  do  the  same.  I  heard  a  man  who 
lived  near  the  Canada  line,  in  Vermont,  during  the 
last  war  with  Great  Britain,  tell  the  following  story. 
"  There  was,"  said  he,  "  much  smuffo-lino;  o-oino;  on. 
Whenever  we  met  a  traveller  with  a  pack  of  any 
kind,  we  ordered  it  to  be  searched.  Honest  men 
always  said,  '  search  and  welcome.'  But  whenever 
a  man  refused,  or  made  any  fuss  about  it,  we  always 
suspected  that  there  were  contraband  goods  in  the 
pack ;  and  we  were  never  mistaken."  You  have 
brought  contraband  goods  into  the  house  of  God,  and 

the  Bible  tells  the  people  so.     Hence  it  is  forbidden. 
3* 


so  KIR  WAN's   LETTERS 

Light  is  the  sure  death  of  darkness.     The  circula- 
tion of  the  Bible  will  be  the  death  of  popery. 
With  great  respect,  yours, 

KiRWAN. 


LETTER  lY. 

Transition  from  Popery  to  Infidelity — Inquiry  awakened — Abstinence  from 
Meats — The  Mass — Confession — Transubstantiatiou — ReKgion  vanishes. 

My  dear  Sir, — In  my  last  two  letters  I  have 
stated  to  you  some  of  the  causes  of  my  early  mis- 
givings as  to  yours  being  a  true  church,  and  as  to 
its  holding  the  true  faith.  These  causes  I  might 
multiply  indefinitely ;  for  you  well  know  it  to  be  a 
law  of  the  human  mind  that  when  its  confidence  is 
once  shaken,  it  sees  causes  of  suspicion  even  in 
things  true  and  honest.  In  my  first  letter  I  stated 
to  you  that  when  I  deliberately  rejected  the  autho- 
rity and  teachings  of  your  church,  I  became  an 
infidel.  And  my  object  in  the  present  letter  is  to 
reveal  to  you  the  process  through  which  my  mind 
passed,  in  its  transition  from  popery  to  infidelity.  I 
believe  that  your  Reverence  will  pronounce  it  a 
very  natural  one. 

On  reaching  the  years  of  maturity  my  mind  was 

a  perfect  blank  as  to  all  religious  instruction.     And 

if  such  instruction  is  ever  given  by  your  church  or 

priests,  my  advantages  were   peculiarly  good  for 

fceiving   it.     Indeed   I  was  even  talked  of  as  a 


TO   BISHOP    HUGHES.  31 

candidate  for  Maynooth.  Whilst  my  mind  was 
filled  with  superstitious  notions  concerning  meats 
and  penances,  and  external  observances,  and  legends, 
it  was  utterly  ignorant  of  the  Bible.  With  my 
Missal  I  was  somewhat  familiar:  I  said  the  Cate- 
chism when  I  was  confirmed  at  the  age  of  nine  or 
ten  ;  and  that  was  the  amount  of  my  religious  edu- 
cation. At  the  age  of  eighteen  years  the  Catechism 
was  forgotten,  and  the  Missal  was  neglected ;  and 
as  my  conscience  was  uneducated,  and  my  mind 
unfurnished  with  religious  principles,  the  only  test 
of  truth  left  me  was  my  common  sense.  I  then 
became  the  associate  of  companions  of  Protestant 
education,  who  would  sometimes  ask  me  my  reason 
for  this  and  that  observance ;  and  not  being  able  to 
give  any,  as  none  were  ever  given  me,  I  was  fre- 
quently put  to  the  blush.  I  candidly  state  to  you 
that  it  was  in  this  way  I  was  first  led  to  bring  to  the 
test  of  my  common  sense,  then  my  only  standard, 
some  of  the  doctrines  and  rites  of  your  church. 
And  this  reveals  the  reason  why  your  priesthood  is 
so  intensely  concerned  that  Catholic  children  snould 
be  guarded  from  all  contact  with  those  of  Protestant 
education.  The  spirit  of  inquiry  is  contagious ;  and 
pope,  bishops,  and  priests  fear  it  worse  than  the 
plague.  Its  indulgence,  you  know,  either  is,  or 
leads  to,  mortal  sin.  Let  me  briefly  state  lo  you 
Bome  of  the  effects  of  this  spirit  of  inquiry  upon  me. 
From  my  youth  up  I  was  taught  to  abstain  from 
all  meats  on  Fridays  and  Saturdays.    Why  on  these 


32  kirwan's  letters 

days  more  than  any  other,  1  was  never  told.  And 
if  by  mistake  I  was  involved  in  the  violation  of  this 
law,  I  felt  a  burden  upon  my  conscience,  of  which 
confession  could  only  relieve  me.  Circumstances 
led  me  to  inquire  into  this  matter.  I  saw  good 
papists  eating  eggs,  and  fish,  and  getting  drunk  on 
these  days ;  but  this  was  no  violation  of  the  law 
of  the  Church !  Yet  if  these  persons  should  eat 
meat  of  any  kind  ;  or  use  gravy  in  any  way,  their 
consciences  were  troubled,  and  they  must  perform 
penance  !  This  led  me  to  ask.  Is  this  reasonable  ? 
If  I  may  eat  meat  on  Thursday,  why  not  on  Friday  ? 
Can  God,  in  things  of  this  kind,  make  that  to  be  a 
sin  at  one  time  which  is  not  on  another?  I  saw 
also  persons,  for  whose  moral  worth  I  had  the 
highest  regard,  eating  meats  on  those  days,  and 
without  any  injury  !  And  I  came  to  the  conclusion 
that  your  regulations  upon  this  matter  were  un- 
reasonable, and  rejected  them.  And,  as  far  as  I 
now  remember,  this  was  my  first  step  towards  light 
and  freedom. 

Whether  our  course  is  upwards,  towards  the 
region  of  light,  or  downwards,  towards  that  of  dark- 
ness, one  step  always  prepares  for  another.  De- 
voted to  reading  at  this  period  of  my  life,  I  perused, 
without  discrimination,  every  thing  that  came  in 
my  way.  Some  book  or  tract,  now  forgotten,  gave 
rise  to  some  inquiries  as  to  the  Mass.  I  asked.  What 
does  it  mean  ?  I  could  not  tell,  though  for  years  a 
Tegular  attendant  upon  it.     Why  does  the  priest 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  33 

dress  so  ?  What  book  does  he  read  from,  when 
carried  now  to  his  right,  and  now  to  his  left  ?  What 
mean  those  candles  burning  at  noonday  ?  Why  do 
I  say  prayers  in  Latin,  which  I  understand  not? 
Should  I  not  know  what  I  am  saying  when  address- 
ing  my  Maker  '?  Why  bow  down,  and  strike  my 
breast,  when  the  little  bell  rings  ?  What  does  it 
all  mean  ?  The  darkness  of  Egypt  rested  upon 
these  questions.  I  thus  reasoned  with  myself; 
God  is  a  spiritual  and  intelligent  being,  and  he 
requires  an  intelligent  worship.  What  worship  I 
render  him  in  the  Mass,  I  know  not.  My  intel- 
ligent worship  only  is  acceptable  to  him,  and  is 
beneficial  to  me.  I  am  a  rational  being,  and  1 
degrade  my  nature,  and  insult  my  Maker,  by  offer- 
ing to  Him  a  worship  in  which  neither  my  reason, 
nor  His  intelligence  is  consulted.  Having  come  to 
this  conclusion,  I  gave  up  the  Mass  as  a  form  of 
worship  well  enough  fitted  for  an  idol,  but  unfitted 
to  be  rendered  by  a  rational  being  to  the  infinitely 
intelligent  Jehovah.  I  have  never  been  to  Mass 
since,  save  out  of  curiosity  to  see  how  an  ignorant 
people  can  be  edified  by  what  seems  to  me  the 
most  unmeaning  and  farcical  of  all  the  rites  that 
ever  man  has  devised.  And  you  know,  sir,  that 
with  all  devotion  and  honesty  a  Catholic  may  wait 
on  your  Masses  until  his  locks  are  as  white  as  your 
surplice,  and  then  pass  into  eternity  without  one 
single  spiritual  idea  upon  the  subject  of  religion ; 
resolving  it  all  into  external  observances. 


34  kirwan's  letters. 

When  I  came  to  the  above  conclusion  on  the 
subject  of  the  Mass,  I  experienced  no  great  diffi- 
culty as  to  other  matters  which  passed  rapidly  in 
review  before  me.  Must  I  go  to  Confession  ?  My 
prejudices  said,  Yes.  My  reason  said,  No.  And 
my  logic  was  simply  as  follows  : — If  I  truly  repent 
of  my  sins  God  will  forgive  me ;  if  I  do  not,  the 
priest  cannot  absolve  me.  And  I  spurned  as  un- 
reasonable, and  as  an  insult  to  my  common  sense, 
your  terrible  doctrine  that  "  Every  Christian  is 
bound,  under  pain  of  damnation,  to  confess  to  a 
priest  all  his  mortal  sins,  which  after  diligent  exa- 
mination he  can  possibly  remember  ;  yea  even  his 
most  secret  sins ;  his  very  thoughts ;  yea  and  all 
the  circumstances  of  them  which  are  of  any  mo- 
ment." I  ask  you,  sir,  if  this  dogma  of  the  Council 
of  Trent  is  not  a  horrible  dogma  ?  It  suspends  upon 
confessing  1o  a  priest,  what  the  Bible  suspends  on 
believing  in  Christ !  Do  you,  sir,  believe  it  ?  Can 
you  believe  it  ? 

With  yet  greater  abhorrence,  I  gave  up  the 
doctrine  of  Transubstantiation.  As  explained  by 
Dr.  Challoner,'  in  his  "Catholic  Christian  In- 
structed," Chap.  5,  it  means  "  that  the  bread  and 
wine  are  changed  by  the  consecration  into  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ ;  and  are  so  changed  that 
Christ  himself,  true  God,  and  true  man,  is  truly, 
really,  and  substantially  present,  in  the  sacrament." 
With  this  doctrine  in  view,  I  went  to  witness  the 
administration  of  the  Eucharist,  as  you  call  it.     I 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  35 

went  to  Saint  Peter's  in  Barclay-street.  The  com- 
municants drew  around  the  altar  upon  their  knees. 
With  a  little  box  in  his  hand  the  priest  passed  from 
one  to  the  other,  taking  a  wafer,  smaller  than  that 
used  in  sealing  a  letter,  from  the  box,  and  placing 
it  upon  the  extended  tongue  of  the  communicant. 
I  was  always  taught  that  the  teeth  must  not  touch 
the  wafer; — ^that  it  must  melt  upon  the  tongue. 
This  I  find  to  be  the  law  of  your  church.  I  wit- 
nessed the  ceremony,  as  I  had  often  done  before.  I 
retired  from  the  scene,  asking  these  questions :  Is 
that  little  wafer  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ? 
Does  the  priest,  in  that  little  box,  not  as  large  as  a 
snuff-box,  carry  two  or  three  hundred  real  bodies  of 
Christ  ?  Do  these  communicants,  each  in  their 
turn,  eat  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ  ?  My 
dear  sir,  I  cannot  express  to  you  the  violence  with 
which  my  mind  rejected  the  absurdity.  Look  at  it 
in  what  light  you  may,  it  is  abhorrent  to  our  common 
reason — it  gives  the  lie  to  every  sense  with  which 
God  has  endowed  us.     It  is  a  wicked  imposition. 

Having  gone  through  this  process,  not  with  a  light 
and  trifling,  but  with  a  serious  mind,  my  prejudices 
rising  in  stormy  rebellion  against  my  convictions,  I 
raised  up  my  eyes,  and  behold,  my  religion  was 
gone  !  The  priest  was  a  juggler,  and  his  religion  a 
fable !  Every  thing  that  I  had  ever  learned  from 
parent  and  priest  to  e?teem  as  religion,  was  now 
rejected  aus  fultje  ;  and  ««  k:?7owii!ig  but  that  this  waa 


36 


all  of  religion  that  was  in  the  world,  I  had  no  alter- 
native but  infidelity.  I  had  no  test  of  truth  but  my 
reason,  and  when  I  brought  your  system  to  that,  I 
was  compelled  to  reject  it,  not  only  as  false,  but  as 
a  monstrous  absurdity,  and  with  it,  all  religion. 

Nor  have  I,  dear  sir,  any  hesitation  in  saying  that 
the  process  of  my  own  mind  from  popery  to  infi- 
delity, is  that  through  which  multitudes  of  minds 
have  passed,  and  are  now  passing.  To  an  inquiring 
mind,  which  knows  nothing  of  the  Bible,  infidelity 
is  the  fruit  of  popery.  Hence  in  papal  countries, 
whilst  the  masses  are  superstitious,  the  intelligent 
and  educated  are  infidel.  If  they  sustain  the  vul- 
gar religion,  it  is  for  reasons  of  state.  Hence,  the 
infidelity  of  France,  of  Spain,  of  Italy.  At  the 
present  hour  the  mind  of  these  countries  is  more 
infidel  than  papal.  And  this  is  true  of  every  coun- 
try on  the  globe  where  your  religion  prevails.  It 
makes  the  masses  superstitious,  and  the  intelligent, 
infidels. 

And  permit  me  tO  say,  m^  dear  sir,  in  reference 
to  yourself,  that  I  have  far  too  high  a  regard  for 
your  intelligence  to  admit  for  a  moment  that  you 
believe  in  the  absurd  doctrines  which  your  church 
teaches.  Like  the  ancient  priests  of  Egypt,  you 
must  have  one  class  of  opinions  for  the  people,  and 
another  for  yourself.  Will  you  say  that  this  is 
harsh  and  uncharitable  ?  None  knows  better  than 
yourself  that  history  affirms  it  of  popes,  cardinals, 


TO    BISHOr    HUGHES.  37 

and   bishops  that  have  lived   before  you.     On  no 
other  ground  can  I  possibly  account  for  your  remain- 
ing an  hour  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 
With  great  respect,  yours, 

KiRWAN. 


LETTER  V. 

Dopery  makes  the  masses  superstitions,  the  intelligent  infidels — Who  go  to 
confession  ? — Ireland — France — Other  countries — Reasons  why  Popery 
debases — The  days  of  Popery  numbered. 

My  dear  Sir, — In  my  last  letter,  in  v/hich  I  stated 
to  you  the  process  of  my  mind  in  its  transition  from 
Popery  to  Infidelity,  I  asserted  that  the  effect  of  your 
religion  is,  to  make  the  masses  superstitious,  and  the 
intelligent  infidels,  in  all  the  countries  where  it  pre- 
dominates. Although  the  truth  of  this  assertion  is 
self-evident  to  the  well-read  mind,  the  briefest  con- 
sideration will  make  its  truth  apparent  to  all. 

How  stands  the  matter  in  our  own  country  ?  Who 
attend  your  Confessional,  and  your  Masses  in  New- 
York  ?  How  many  of  the  educated  Irish,  French, 
or  Germans,  ever  whisper  at  your  knees  their  sins, 
or  ever  bow  at  your  altars  to  receive  your  wafers 
on  their  tongues,  believing  them  to  "  be  Jesus  Christ 
himself,  true  God  and  true  man,"  and  believing  that 
he  is  "  truly,  really  and  substantially  present "  in 
them  ?  How  many  of  these  go  to  your  churches  ? 
Let  any  body,  wishing  to  know,  stand  at  the  door  of 
4 


38  kirwan's  letters 

St.  Peter's  or  St.  Patrick's,  on  the  Sabbath,  and  ex- 
amine the  multitudes  who  attend  these  places,  and 
they  will  soon  learn.  And  even  when  an  intelli- 
gent person  is  seen  mixing  with  those  who  attend  on 
your  masses,  he  goes  merely  through  the  force  of 
liabit,  or  to  wait  upon  a  female  relative.  Permit 
me  to  say  that,  with  an  acquaintance  somewhat 
extended  in  our  country,  I  knoAv  not  a  single  lay- 
man, of  any  repute  for  learning  or  science,  who 
believes  in  your  distinguishing  doctrines.  There 
are  some,  I  allow,  of  high  standing  and  character 
who  are  nominally  Catholics,  but  who,  I  learn  on 
inquiry,  are  but  nominally  so.  And  the  nominally 
Catholic  is  really  an  infidel. 

And  how  stands  the  case  as  to  Ireland,  the  land 
of  our  birth,  where  seven  of  her  nine  millions  of 
people  are  Roman  Catholics  ?  Whilst  its  masses 
are  with  your  church,  is  not  its  mind  in  opposition 
to  it  ?  And  what  has  kept  the  mind  of  Ireland  from 
being  infidel,  but  the  fact  that  the  religion  of  the 
Bible  stands  out  there  with  a  greater  or  less  degree 
of  prominence  in  opposition  to  the  religion  of  the 
priest  ?  Thank  God  the  Irish  massacre  did  not 
exterminate  Protestantism  in  the  "  fairest  isle  of  the 
ocean." 

And  how  stands  the  case  in  France,  wheie  your 
church,  Nero-like,  extinguisVied  the  lights  of  truth, 
and  caused  the  blood  of  the  Huguenots  to  run  like 
water  ?  Popery  has  managed  France  in  its  own 
way,  without  any  let  or  hinderance,  and  what  has 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  3^ 

been  the  result  ?  It  legislated  God  out  of  existence 
—decreed  religion  to  be  a  fable,  and  death  to  be  an 
eternal  sleep.  Knowing,  nothing  of  religion  but 
what  it  learned  through  the  unmeaning  rites  of  your 
church,  and  by  the  carnal  policy  of  your  priests,  it 
sought  to  erase  every  trace  of  it  from  existence. 
And  although  France  has  recovered  from  the  intoxi- 
cation of  the  maddening  bowl,  and  has  risen  to 
order  from  the  wild  chaos  into  which  Popery  plunged 
it,  its  mind  is  yet  infidel.  Voltaire  is  the  pope  of  the 
mind  of  France,  and  Sue  is  the  high  priest  of  the 
people.  Your  dumb  show  of  imposing  ceremony  is 
there  esteemed,  not  as  solemn,  but  farcical ;  and 
upon  your  rites  but  few  attend  save  the  peasantry 
and  the  women.  And  the  world  should  hold  the 
Papal  church  accountable  for  all  the  horrors  of  the 
French  Revolution. 

What  is  thus  true  of  France  is  yet  more  true  of 
the  other  Papal  countries  of  Europe.  If  the  no- 
bility of  Spain,  Portugal,  Austria,  or  Italy,  are  less 
infidel  than  in  France,  it  is  because  they  are  less 
educated.  Their  masses  are  superstitious — their 
educated  men,  including  many  of  their  clergy,  are 
infidels — and  their  men  of  fortune  and  spirit  live 
without  any  moral  restraint.  Popery  brings  no 
strong  moral  influence  to  bear  upon  the  mind  and 
conscience  of  any  people.  In  the  proportion  that 
its  influence  is  strong,  do  people  and  nations  sink  in 
the  intellectual,  social,  and  moral  scale. 

That  you  yourself,  dear  sir,  may  see  this,  sit  down 


40  kirwan's  letters 

and  candidly  compare  Connaught  and  Ulster,  in  Ire- 
land. In  the  one,  Popery  almost  exclusively  prevails ; 
in  the  other.  Protestantism  is  in  the  ascendency. 
What  a  difference  between  them  !  Compare  Ireland 
and  Scotland — and  although  the  land  of  St.  Patrick 
is  far  richer  than  that  of  St.  Andrew,  yet  how  heaven- 
wide  the  difference  between  them  !  Compare  Spain 
with  England — Italy  with  Prussia — Rome  with 
Edinburgh — Belfast  with  Cork  :  how  wide  the  dif- 
ference !  Come  across  the  Atlantic,  and  continue 
the  comparison  on  our  own  Western  continent. 
Compare  Mexico  to  New  England — Brazil  to  these 
United  States — the  city  of  Mexico  to  that  of  Boston, 
or  New-York,  or  Cincinnati !  How  great  the  con- 
trast !  Come  yet  nearer  home :  compare  the  wor- 
shippers at  St.  Peter's  in  Barclay-street  with  those 
at  St.  Paul's  in  Broadway  ; — compare  the  attendants 
on  your  own  ministry  at  St.  Patrick's  with  those  who 
worship  God  at  the  Brick  Church,  or  at  La  Fayette 
Place,  or  at  University  Place.  How  wide  the  dif- 
ference intellectually,  socially,  morally  !  And  why 
is  it  that  Papal  countries  and  communities  thus  suf- 
fer, and  so  sadly  suffer,  when  contrasted  with  other 
communities  where  there  is  an  unshackled  con- 
science and  an  open  Bible  ?  There  must  be  some 
general  law  or  cause  in  operation  to  produce  results 
so  uniform.  What  is  that  law  or  cause  ?  Sir,  it  is 
the  influence  of  that  system  of  religion  which  you 
are  seeking  with  so  much  zeal  and  ability  to  extend. 
The  traveller  in  Europe  need  not  be  told  when  he 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  41 

crosses  the  lines  that  separate  Papal  from  Protestant 
states  ;  the  obvious  marks  of  higher  civilization  de- 
clare the  transition  with  almost  as  much  plainness 
as  would  a  broad  river  or  a  chain  of  mountains. 
Popery,  with  infallible  certainty,  degrades  man. 
Do  you  ask  how  ?     In  this  wise. 

It  takes  from  him  the  Bible,  the  revealed  will  of 
God,  with  all  its  clear  light,  with  all  its  high  mo- 
tives to  excite  the  soul  to  high  and  holy  action  ;  and 
without  which  neither  civilization  nor  religion  can 
be  long  maintained.  Papal  countries  are  countries 
without  the  Bible. 

It  withholds  from  the  people  all  right  moral  in- 
struction. It  suppresses  the  preaching  of  the  gospel, 
and  substitutes  for  it  the  dumb  show  of  the  Mass. 
The  Apostles  turned  the  world  upside  down  by 
preaching  :  but  in  Papal  countries  there  is  generally 
no  preaching.  I  venture  the  assertion  that  there 
are  multitudes  of  Catholic  churches  in  Catholic 
countries  where  a  sermon  would  be  as  great  a  rarity 
as  would  be  the  saying  of  mass  in  a  Scottish  kirk  ? 
And  is  it  not  one  of  the  seven  wonders  of  the  day, 
that  the  present  Pope,  the  pretended  successor  of 
that  warm-hearted  preacher,  Peter,  has  preached  a 
sermon,  the  first  preached  by  a  Pope  in  three  hundred 
years ! !  Could  Peter  return  to  Rome,  unless  his 
long  absence  from  the  body  has  cooled  his  generous 
but  impetuous  spirit,  I  am  afraid  he  would  treat  his 
pretended  successors  as  roughly   as  he   once  did 

Malchus. 

4* 


42  KIR  WAN's    LETTERS 

It  withholds  from  the  people  the  benign  influences 
of  Christianity,  the  great  element  in  the  develop, 
ment  of  civilization.  It  withholds  the  Bible  ; — the 
sermon ; — it  has  instituted  a  worship  which  wants 
nothing  of  heathenism  but  the  name  ; — that  worship 
is  performed  in  a  language  now  unspoken  by  any 
living  people ; — it  excludes  all  reading  from  the 
people  but  such  as  the  priest  permits ; — acting  on 
the  principle  that  ignorance  is  the  mother  of  devo- 
tion, it  erects  no  schools  for  the  instruction  of  the 
common  mind ; — it  substitutes  the  feast  day  for  the 
Sabbath, — the  saints  and  the  Virgin  Mary  for  the 
Saviour ; — confessions  and  penances,  for  faith  in 
Christ ; — and  reverence  for  places,  unmeaning  rites, 
relics,  for  the  fear  of  God.  Sir,  I  say  it  with  deep 
sorrow,  Popery  is  not  Christianity.  It  is  a  fearful  per- 
version of  the  relisfion  of  God  :  and  for  the  evidence 
of  these  assertions  I  again  point  you  to  its  influence 
upon  the  people  where  there  is  nothing  to  counteract 
it.  It  has  degraded  the  once  noble  Castilian  until 
there  is  no'V  none  so  mean  as  to  do  him  reverence  ; 
— Italy,  once  the  seat  of  empire,  it  has  reduced  to 
feebleness  ; — and  the  once  chivalrous  Italian,  who 
carried  the  eagles  of  his  country  to  the  extremes 
of  the  world,  to  an  ignoble  slave.  And  it  has  ren- 
dered our  noble-hearted,  noble-minded,  impulsive 
countrymen,  the  hewers  of  wood  and  the  drawers 
of  water  in  all  the  countries  to  which  they  emigrate. 
The  degradation  of  Ireland,  which  has  made  it  a  by- 
word, I  charge  upon  Popery.     If  the  priests  of  Ire- 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  43 

land  would  give  the  quarter  of  what  they  receive 
for  praying  souls  out  of  Purgatory,  to  the  sustaining 
of  common  schools  among  the  people,  there  might  be 
tnree  or  more  such  schools  sustained  in  every  parish 
in  that  bleeding,  famishing,  yet  noble  country  ;  and 
its  sons  would  have  an  opportunity  of  rising  to  that 
position  to  which  their  native  wit,  eloquence,  and 
genius  entitle  them. 

These,  sir,  are,  in  brief,  my  reasons  for  asserting 
that  the  effect  of  your  religion  is  to  make  the  masses 
of  your  people  superstitious.  They  have  no  intel- 
.igent  views  of  God.  They  know  nothing  about 
the  plan  of  salvation.  Sacraments  and  ceremonies 
exert  an  undefined,  mysterious  influence.  The 
priest  exerts  a  ghostly,  fearful  power,  before  which 
tlie  ignorant  believer  slavishly  crouches,  and  of 
which  ne  stands  far  more  in  awe  than  he  does  of  the 
God  who  has  made  him. 

And  the  very  causes  which  renier  the  masses 
superstitious,  operate  in  an  opposite  direction  upon 
the  intelligent,  and  drive  them  into  infidelity.  They 
reason  about  your  doctrines  as  the  Earl  of  Mulgrave 
is  said  to  have  done  with  a  priest  who  was  sent  to 
him  by  James  II.  of  England,  to  convert  him  to  Po- 
pery. "  Sir,"  said  he,  "  I  have  convinced  myself 
by  much  reflection  that  God  made  man  ;  but  I  can 
not  believe  that  man  can  make  God." 

My  dear  sir,  the  days  of  Popery  are  numbered. 
The  Bible  is  against  it.  Civilization  is  against  it. 
The  mind  of  the  world  is  against  it.     Good  people 


kirwan's  letters 


now  pray  for  its  downfall  as  earnestly  as  they  do 
for  that  of  Mahometanism.  It  may  live  through 
centuries  yet  to  come  ;  but  it  will  be  as  Judaism 
now  lives ;  or  as  Paganism  lived  in  many  dark  cor- 
ners of  the  Roman  world  long  after  its  conversion  to 
the  Christian  faith.  But  my  own  fear  is  that  the 
Papal  world,  both  as  to  its  mind  and  its  masses,  will 
become  suddenly  infidel,  as  in  France,  and  then 
pour  down  its  legions  upon  the  church  of  God,  to 
blot  it  out  of  existence.  The  Romish  church  is  one 
of  the  "  gates  of  hell "  which  has  poured  forth  ar- 
mies of  the  aliens  in  opposition  to  the  church  of 
Christ ;  but  it  has  never,  nor  will  it  ever,  prevail 
against  it. 

With  great  respect,  yours, 

KrawAN. 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES.  45 


LETTER  YI. 

Popery  has  degraded  Ireland — Evidences  of  its  degradation — Absenteeism— 
Sub-letting — Tithesj — The  priest's  cry  for  money. 

My  dear  Sir, — In  my  last  letter,  in  which  I 
sought  to  illustrate  that  the  influence  of  Popery  is 
to  make  the  masses  superstitious,  and  the  intelligent, 
infidels,  in  all  the  countries  where  it  predominates^ 
1  made  the  following  assertion :  "it  has  rendered 
our  noble- hearted,  noble-minded,  imptflsive  country- 
m.en,  the  hewers  of  wood  and  the  drawers  of  water, 
in  all  the  countries  to  which  they  emigrate.  The 
degradation  of  Ireland  which  has  made  it  a  by-word, 
I  charge  upon  Popery."  To  some  of  the  evidences 
of  the  truth  of  these  assertions  I  wish  to  call  your 
attention  in  the  present  letter.  Perhaps  the  present 
state  of  feeling  in  our  country  towards  famine- 
stricken  Ireland  may  secure  for  what  I  shall  say  to 
you  some  attention. 

That  Ireland  is  a  degraded  country,  as  to  its 
masses,  with  all  our  pride  of  country,  neither  you 
nor  I  can  deny.  Its  general  poverty,  its  pervading 
ignorance,  its  mud  hovels,  its  innumerable  beggars, 
its  insubordination,  are  the  sad  and  tangible  proofs 
of  its  degradation.  They  lie  upon  the  surface  of 
the  country,  where  every  traveller  can  behold  them. 
And  the  untravelled  American  has  the  evidences  of 


46  kirwan's  letters 

this  degradation  brought  to  his  own  door.  He  sees 
it  in  the  perfect  ignorance  of  his  Irish  servant — in 
the  squalid  appearance  of  the  Irish  beggar — in  the 
deep-rooted  superstition  of  the  Irish  papist — in  the 
Irish  brawls  in  low  tippling-houses — in  the  furious 
passions  of  an  Irish  mob — in  the  large  proportion  of 
Irish  convicts  in  our  prisons,  and  of  vicious  Irish  in 
our  places  of  moral  reform.  It  is,  my  dear  sir, 
with  feelings  of  regret  and  shame  that  I  make  this 
statement.  My  love  of  country  has  never  forsaken 
me  for  an  hour.  With  all  its  faults,  I  love  Ireland 
still ;  and  in  the  lowest  depths  of  their  degradation 
its  children  manifest  a  sensibility  and  a  nobility  that 
would  honor  those  in  the  highest  ranks  of  civiliza- 
tion, and  that  evince  what  they  would  be  under  a 
right  development  of  their  social  and  moral  nature. 
What  are  the  causes  of  this  degradation  ? 

I  will  not,  I  cannot  omit  from  the  list  of  causes 
what  is  technically  called  Absenteeism  :  the  lordly 
proprietors  of  the  land  living  in  foreign  countries, 
and  expending  abroad  the  hard  earnings  of  their 
tenants  at  home.  This  is  one  of  the  grievous  curses 
of  Ireland. 

Nor  can  I  omit  the  system  of  letting  and  sub- 
letting, or  renting  and  sub-renting  of  the  land,  by 
the  richer  to  the  less  rich,  until  between  the  owner 
and  the  actual  cultivaior  there  may  be  six  to  twelve 
landlords,  each  living  upon  those  below  him ;  and 
the  actual  tillers  of  the  land  supporting  them  all ! 
This  is  infusing  into  the  curse  of  absenteeism  an 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  47 

ingredient  which  multiplies  its  bitterness  by  ten.  It 
gives  rise  to  a  class  of  landlords  as  unpitying  aa 
famine. 

Nor  can  I  omit  the  system  of  tithes  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  Established  Church  of  Ireland.  An 
Episcopal  priest  is  placed  in  every  parish  in  Ire- 
land ;  and  if  he  has  not  one  single  parishioner  to 
wait  on  his  ministrations,  he  is  yet  entitled  to  his 
tithes  from  the  parish.  And  these  tithes  are  drawn 
from  the  actual  cultivators  of  the  soil,  the  poor 
tenants.  And  these  tithes  are  usually  let  and  sub- 
let, as  is  the  land  ;  and  their  collection  usually  falls 
into  the  hands  of  men  as  rapacious  as  vultures. 
Yes,  and  the  priest  for  whose  support  these  tithes 
are  paid  may  never  have  made  the  impress  of  his 
foot  upon  the  soil  of  his  parish !  Yes,  and  when 
the  tither  calls  upon  the  poor  man  to  pay  his  tithes 
for  the  support  of  a  minister  he  has  never  seen,  and 
for  the  maintenance  of  a  religion  which  his  soul  ab- 
hors, unless  he  is  ready  to  pay,  his  only  cow,  more 
than  one  half  the  support  of  his  family,  is  driven  to 
the  market  and  there  sold  for  half  her  value  !  And 
if  that  does  not  pay,  his  pig  is  driven  and  sold  in 
the  same  way  '  Such  is  the  system  of  tithes  in  Ire- 
land !  I  have  no  language,  my  dear  sir,  in  which 
to  express  my  abhorrence  of  it.  The  support  of 
such  a  system  is  a  disgrace  to  the  Protestant  name  ; 
it  is  a  deep,  dark,  direful  stain  upon  the  equity  of 
British  legislation.  It  is  a  public  protest  before 
heaven  and  earth  against  the  church  that  sanctions 


48  kirwak's  letters 

it,  and  against  the  craven-hearted,  earthly-minded 
clergy  that  can  submit  to  be  thus  supported  !  Out 
of  your  own  church,  sir,  I  know  of  no  ecclesiastical 
nuisance  so  utterly  offensive  as  that  of  the  Estab. 
lished  Church  of  Ireland !  And  yet  the  very  up- 
holders of  these  schemes  of  robbery,  yes,  and  some 
of  the  very  individuals  that  pocket  the  plunder  thus 
legally  and  ecclesiastically  filched  from  the  poor 
people,  write  to  us  about  public  faith  and  honesty, 
and  lecture  us  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  as  if  they 
were  spotless  as  Gabriel !  Of  all  this  I  can  say,  as 
Talleyrand  is  reported  to  have  said  of  a  lady  that 
frequently  annoyed  him  ;  "  Madam,"  said  he,  "  you 
have  byt  one  fault."  "  Pray,  sir,"  said  she,  "  what 
is  it  ?"  "  It  is,"  said  he,  "  that  you  are  perfectly 
insufferable."  Nor  have  I  seen,  among  the  various 
plans  suggested  by  Lord  John  Russell  for  the  relief 
of  Ireland,  a  hint  at  the  abolition  of  this  nefarious 
system  of  tithes. 

Bad,  my  dear  sir,  as  I  think  of  these  causes,  and 
much  as  they  have  contributed  to  the  degradation 
and  impoverishing  of  Ireland,  they  are  but  as  the 
dust  of  the  balance  when  compared  with  the  influ- 
ences of  Popery.  And  that  yourself  may  see  this, 
hear  me  to  the  cbse,  calmly,  and.  without  prejudice. 

Why  this  Absenteeism,  of  which  we  so  bitterly 
and  justly  complain  ?  I  am  not  about  to  excuse  it ; 
but  one  of  its  reasons  is  the  opposition  of  the  priest 
to  the  efforts  of  the  land  proprietor  to  elevate  his 
tenantry,  and  the  fierce  jealousies  which  the  priest 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  49 

excites  in  the  minds  of  the  people.  There  is  but 
little  Absenteeism  in  Scotland  ;  why  is  it  so  general 
in  Ireland  ?  The  cause  we  find  in  the  difference  of 
the  religion  of  the  two  people.  If  the  parish  priest 
of  Ireland  was  like  the  parish  minister  of  Scotland, 
the  Marquis  of  Sligo  would  have  as  pleasant  a  home 
upon  his  estate  as  the  Duke  of  Buccleugh,  or  the 
Marquis  of  Broadalbane. 

Popery  does  nothing  for  the  education  of  the  peo- 
ple of  Ireland.  With  the  wealth  of  the  middling 
classes  under  its  control,  and  almost  at  its  beck, 
where  are  its  schools  and  its  colleges  for  the  educa- 
tion of  its  people  ?  You  send  to  Ireland  for  money 
to  establish  them  here ;  why  erect  none  there  ? 
Connaught,  where  your  church  has  complete  con- 
trol, is  an  almost  unbroken  mass  of  ignorance.  And 
Munster  is  precisely  like  it.  And  these  are  the 
portions  of  it  where  the  famine  is  now  raging.  Ig- 
norance brutalizes,  and  sensualizes,  and  renders 
men  improvident.  It  places  our  higher  in  subjec- 
tion to  our  lower  nature  ;  and  in  withnoiding  educa- 
tion from  the  people  popery  has  degraded  Ireland. 
And  wherever  its  children  are  carried  bv  the  tide 
of  emigration,  their  want  of  education  places  them 
in  the  lowest  grade  of  society :  and  they  are  more 
dreaded  as  a  burden,  than  hailed  as  an  accession. 
Without  the  high  aspirations  which  knowledge  im- 
parts, and  without  the  self-respect  which  it  creates, 
they  are  satisfied  with  being  menials  where  they 
might  be  masters — to  be  carriers  of  mortar,  where 
5 


M  kirwan's  letters 

they  might  be  chief  builders  on  the  wall.  If  the 
ignorance  of  Ireland  has  any  thing  to  do  with  the 
degradation  of  Ireland,  I  charge  that  ignorance  upon 
Fopery. 

And  if  Absenteeism,  and  sub-letting,  and  the  tithe 
system  do  much  to  impoverish  the  people,  Popery 
does  yet  more.  It  meets  them  at  the  cradle,  and 
dogs  them  to  the  grave,  and  beyond  it,  with  its  de- 
mands for  money.  When  the  child  is  baptized,  the 
priest  must  have  money.  When  the  mother  is 
churched,  the  priest  must  have  money.  When  the 
boy  is  confirmed,  the  bishop  must  have  money. 
When  he  goes  to  confession,  the  priest  must  have 
money.  W^hen  he  partakes  of  the  Eucharist,  the 
priest  must  have  money.  When  visited  in  sickness, 
the  priest  must  have  money.  If  he  wants  a  charm 
against  sickness  or  the  witches,  he  must  pay  for  it 
money.  When  he  is  buried,  his  friends  must  pay 
money.  After  mass  is  said  over  his  remains,  a 
plate  is  placed  on  the  coffin,  and  the  people  collected 
together  on  the  occasion  are  expected  to  deposit  their 
contribution  on  the  plate.  Then  the  priest  pockets 
the  money,  and  the  people  take  the  body  to  the 
grave.  And  then,  however  good  the  person,  his 
soul  hcis  gone  to  Purgatory  ;  and  however  bad,  his 
soul  may  have  stopped  there.  And  then  comes  the 
money  for  prayers  and  masses  for  deliverance  from 
purgatory,  which  prayers  and  masses  are  continued 
as  long  as  the  money  continues  to  be  paid.  Now 
when  we  remember  that  seven  out  of  the  nine  mil- 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  51 

lions  of  the  people  of  Ireland  are  papists,  and  of  the 
most  bigoted  stamp ;  and  that  this  horse-leech  pro* 
cess  of  collecting  money,  whose  ceaseless  cry  is 
^^ give,  give,''''  is  in  operation  in  every  parish ;  and 
that  as  far  as  possible  every  mdividual  is  subjected 
to  it,  can  we  wonder  at  the  poverty  and  the  degra- 
dation of  Ireland  ?  Can  we  wonder  that  its  noble- 
hearted,  noble-minded  people,  are  every  where  hew- 
ers of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  ?  Shame,  shame, 
upon  your  church,  that  it  treats  a  people  so  con- 
fiding and  faithful  so  basely  !  Shame,  shame  upon 
it,  that  it  does  so  little  to  elevate  a  people  that  con- 
tribute so  freely  to  its  support !  O,  Popery,  thou 
hast  debased  my  country — thou  hast  impoverished 
its  people — thou  hast  enslaved  its  mind  !  From  the 
hodman  on  the  ladder — from  the  digger  of  the  canal 
- — from  the  ostler  in  the  stable — from  the  unlettered 
cook  in  the  kitchen,  and  the  maid  in  the  parlor — 
from  the  rioter  in  the  street — from  the  culprit  at  the 
bar — from  the  state  prisoner  in  his  lonely  dungeon 
— from  the  victim  of  a  righteous  law  stepping  into 
eternity  from  the  gallows,  for  a  murder  committed 
under  the  delirium  of  passion  or  whisky,  I  hear  a 
protest  against  thee  as  the  great  cause  of  the  deep 
degradation  of  as  noble  a  people  as  any  upon  which 
the  sun  shines  in  the  circuit  of  its  glorious  way ! 

My  dear  sir,  your  religion  is  for  the  benefit  of  the 
priest,  and  not  that  of  the  people.  Its  object  is  not 
to  spread  light,  but  darkness, — not  to  advance  civ- 
ilization but  to  retard  it, — not  to  elevate  but  to  de- 


62  kirwan's  letters 

press  man,  that  he  may  the  more  readily  be  brought 
under  your  influence.  And  we  have  in  Ireland  a 
type  of  what  our  happy  land  will  be  when  the  priest 
wields  the  power  here  which  he  wields  there. 

I  own,  dear  sir,  that  I  have  digressed  a  little  from 
my  original  object  in  these  letters.  But  in  my  next 
I  shall  commence  with  the  reasons  which  on  tlie 
most  mature  reflection  yet  prevent  me  from  return- 
ing to  the  pale  of  your  church. 

With  great  respect,  yours, 

KlRWAN. 


TO   BISHOP    HUGHES.  53 


LETTER  YII. 

■Reasons  for  not  returning  to  the  papal  chnrch — Prohibition  of  the  Scrip 
tnres — The  way  and  manner  of  papal  worship — Ceremonial  law  of  pope- 
ry- -Obstructions  raised  between  God  and  the  soul 

My  dear  Sir, — Agreeably  to  the  promise  made  to 
you  in  my  last  letter^  I  now  commence  a  statement 
of  the  reasons  which,  on  the  most  mature  reflection, 
yet  prevent  me  from  returning  to  the  pale  of  your 
church.  I  wish  to  avoid  prolixity  of  statement,  and 
minuteness  of  detail ;  as  I  feel  that  I  am  addressing 
one  who  can  see  the  point,  and  weigh  the  force  of 
an  argument,  without  either. 

When,  in  the  kind  providence  of  God,  my  mind 
became  interested  to  know  what  God  would  have 
me  to  do,  I  cast  around  for  a  true  guide  to  the  solu- 
tion of  the  question.  Where  could  I  find  such  an 
one  ?  Books  are  written  by  fallible  men — priests 
had  already  imposed  on  my  understanding — fond 
parents,  deceived  themselves,  taught  me  superstition 
for  religion — all  men  are  liable  to  err.  I  felt  there 
was  a  God,  and  that  I  was  bound  to  obey  him ;  but 
where  is  the  rule  of  my  obedience  ?  This  was  the 
question.  I  was  told  of  the  Bible,  but  of  that  I 
knew  nothing  ;  and,  then,  I  knew  the  Bible  to  be  by 
your  church  a  prohibited  book,  or  to  be  read  only 
by  priestly  permission.  I  sought  the  Bible,  and 
read  it.     I  found  it  to  be  the  true,  and  only  guide  to 

5* 


54  KIRWAN  S    LETTERS 

the  right  solution  of  the  question  as  to  what  God 
would  have  me  to  do.  And  without  the  fear  of  the 
Pope,  or  of  the  anathemas  of  the  Council  of  Trent, 
and  without  a  line  of  license  from  prelate  or  priest, 
I  have  continued  to  read  it  for  years.  And  the  vir- 
tual prohibition  of  the  unfettered  reading  of  the  Bi- 
ble by  your  church,  is  one  of  the  main  reasons  why 
I  cannot  return  to  it.  That  your  restrictions  amount 
to  a  virtual  prohibition  your  candor,  will  not  for  a 
moment  deny. 

And  let  me  ask  you,  dear  sir,  why  this  virtual 
prohibition  ?  Who  has  given  you  authority  to  say 
that  I  must  not  read  what  God  has  given  to  direct 
me  into  all  the  ways  of  faith  and  obedience  ?  God 
has  commanded  me  to  "Search  the  Scriptures;" 
who  has  given  you  authority  to  forhid  me  ?  What 
right  have  you  to  forbid  me,  more  than  I  have  to 
forbid  you  ?  Produce  your  credentials !  Where 
does  God  place  his  Revealed  Will  in  the  keeping  of 
pope,  prelate  or  priest,  to  be  doled  out  to  his  erring 
children  in  such  ways  and  parcels  as  they  may 
deem  best  ?  He  has  no  more  placed  the  Bible  under 
your  control,  or  that  of  your  church,  than  he  has 
the  sun  in  heaven,  or  the  vital  air.  Nor  can  I  con- 
ceive of  any  principle  that  can  possibly  induce  you 
to  withhold  it  from  the  people,  without  gloss  or  com- 
ment, save  one  :  "  Every  one  that  doeth  evil  hateth 
the  light,  neither  cometh  to  light,  lest  his  deeds 
should  be  reproved."  It  is  said  that  Herod,  when 
convinced  that  he  was  not  of  the  royal  line  of  the 


TO   BISHOP    HUGHES.  55 

Jews,  burned  their  genealogies  and  records,  that  his 
false  pretences  might  not  be  confuted  by  them.  Is 
it  for  a  similar  reason  that  your  church  withholds 
the  Bible  from  the  people  ?  The  Bible  lays  the  axe 
at  the  root  of  the  Upas  tree  of  Popery ;  is  this  the 
reason  why  it  is  withheld  ? 

Another  of  the  reasons  which  prevent  me  from 
returning  to  your  church  is  the  way  and  the  manner 
of  your  public  worship  of  God.  On  reading  the 
New  Testament,  I  find  that  Jesus  Christ  embraced 
every  opportunity  of  declaring  the  will  of  God. 
After  his  ascension  and  the  descent  of  the  Spirit, 
the  Apostles  went  every  where  preaching  the  gospel 
of  the  Kingdom.  The  worship  of  God  as  taught  us 
in  the  New  Testament,  consists  in  prayer,  praise, 
and  the  preaching  of  his  word  for  the  instruction 
and  edification  of  his  people.  To  the  instruction 
and  edification  of  the  saints  every  thing  in  the 
church  of  Christ  is  made  subservient.  Is  it  so  in 
the  church  of  Rome  ?  Do  your  Masses  convey  any 
instruction  to  the  common  or  the  uncommon  mind  ? 
Do  they  ever  give,  have  they  ever  given,  one  true 
idea  of  God,  or  of  religion,  to  a  human  soul  ?  If  so 
I  should  like  to  know  it.  May  not  individuals 
attend  upon  them  from  youth  to  gray  hairs,  and  yet 
know  not  the  first  principles  of  the  doctrines  of 
Christ  ?  I  have  attended  recently,  sir,  a  High  Mass 
at  one  of  your  Cathedrals.  It  was  on  the  last  Christ* 
mas  day.     I  bore  the  unmeaning  pageant  for  three 


56  kirwan's  letters 

nours  together.  There  was  the  bishcp  in  his  robes, 
with  his  cap,  his  crook  and  his  crosier — there  were 
priests,  in  numbers,  moving  about,  making  their 
crosses,  obeisances  and  genuflexions — when  the 
bishop  rose,  the  cross  and  crosier  moved  before  him, 
and  the  priests,  as  waiters,  went  behind  him — the 
book  was  shifted  from  side  to  side,  and  was  read  and 
chanted  in  ways  that  no  mortal  hearer  could  compre- 
hend— there  was  the  raising  of  the  Host,  and  the 
bowing  down  of  the  people — the  incense,  and  all 
the  other  usual  accompaniments  of  such  a  service ; 
and  it  struck  me  as  one  of  the  most  farcical  panto- 
mines  that  I  ever  witnessed.  I  left  the  house  with- 
out receiving  a  solitary  religious  suggestion,  and 
puzzled  and  confounded  for  a  solution  to  the  ques- 
tion, how  intelJigent  men  could  possibly  submit  to 
act  such  a  farce,  and  to  pass  it  off  upon  a  crowd  of 
poor  looking  people  for  the  solemn  worship  of  God  ? 
And  if  your  Mass,  when  thus  performed  with  all  the 
splendor  and  pomp  of  your  ritual,  is  thus  unmean- 
ing, how  insipid  must  it  be  when  performed  in  your 
country  chapels  by  ignorant  priests,  who  hunt  up 
the  sheep  only  to  shear  off  their  wool !  God,  my 
dear  sir,  is  an  intelligent  God,  he  has  given  me  in- 
telligence with  which  to  worship  him.  For  the 
intelligence  within  me,  either  as  to  its  increase  or 
exercise,  your  church  makes  no  provision  in  its 
public  worship.  I  must  not,  then,  return  to  your 
churchy  and  seek  to  have  my  soul,  made  for  the  in- 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  57 

habitation  of  the  Spirit,  satisfied  with  the  mummery 
of  your  muttered  Masses,  in  the  public  worship  of 
my  God. 

Another  of  the  reasons  which  prevent  me  from 
returning  to  your  church  is,  the  burdens  which  it 
places  on  my  conscience,  which  crush,  without  cor- 
recting it.  It  institutes  a  kind  of  a  ceremonial  law 
which  restricts  where  God  has  given  liberty ;  and 
which  licenses  where  God  has  prohibited  indul- 
gence. With  your  Fast  and  Feast  days,  who  can 
keep  up  without  an  almanac  in  his  hand  ?  A  nd 
how  many  of  your  people  can  read  it  ?  Should  1 
blunder  in  counting  the  days  of  the  week,  and,  mis- 
taking Friday  for  Thursday,  eat  meat,  my  con- 
science is  wounded.  If  in  performing  penance  1 
miscount  my  beads,  and  say  a  less  number  of  Pater 
Nosters  than  required,  my  conscience  again  suffers. 
If,  ignorant  of  the  "  Laws  of  Lent "  which  have 
been  just  published  by  you,  I  should  eat  three  meals 
on  a  day  between  "  Ash  Wednesday  and  Easter 
Sunday,"  or  should  eat  meat  on  the  "Thursday 
next  after  Ash  Wednesday,"  or  on  "  any  day  in  the 
Holy  Week,"  my  conscience  would  be  again  bur- 
dened. And  these  are  but  specimens  of  the  thou- 
sand and  one  ceremonial  regulations  of  your  church, 
as  burdensome  as  they  are  unmeaning,  which  fret 
and  crush  the  conscience  without  directing  or 
strencrthenincr  it.  And  whilst  thus  restricted  ia 
things  indifferent,  1  am  freely  indulged  in  things 
which  the  divine  law  prohibits. 


58 

Now,  sir,  who  has  given  you  authority  to  n\ake 
laws  where  God  has  made  none  ?  Where  is  the 
law  in  the  Statute  Book  for  your  Lents,  your  Feast 
days,  your  Fast  days,  your  Easter  days  ?  Why 
fust  or  feast  at  one  time  more  than  another  ?  Who 
has  given  you  authority  to  say  what  I  shall  eat,  or 
how  often,  in  any  one  day  of  the  year  ?  What  un- 
utterable arroG-ance  to  tell  me  I  cannot  eat  fish  and 
flesh  at  the  same  meal ;  what  priestly  intolerance 
to  tell  me,  with  my  Bible  open  before  me,  that  if  I 
transgress  these  laws  I  sin  against  my  God  !  You 
know  that  the  gospel  is  a  law  of  liberty,  you  know 
that  if  a  man  eat  meat  he  is  not  the  worse,  and  that 
if  he  refrain  he  is  not  the  better — you  know  that 
tlie  Bible  teaches  that  man  is  defiled,  not  by  that 
which  entereth  into  him,  but  by  that  which  cometh 
out  of  him.  And  why  burden  souls  and  fetter  con- 
sciences by  silly  enactments  about  things  in  them- 
selves indifferent,  and  about  which  God  has  made 
no  regulations  ?  O,  sir,  like  the  Scribes  and  the 
Pharisees  of  old,  you  are  busied  about  the  mint,  the 
annis  and  the  cumin,  forgetful  of  the  weightier 
matters  of  the  law.  And  I  deeply  regret  that  a 
man  who  has  forced  himself  up  to  station  and  influ- 
ence against  so  many  adverse  circumstances,  had 
not  force  enough  left  to  break  the  chains  of  early 
religious  prejudice,  to  rise  up  to  the  region  of  mtel- 
lectual,  and  moral,  and  religious  freedom !  You 
are  too  much  of  a  man  to  stoop  to  such  nonsense. 
I  would  leave  such  things  to  those  who  know  no 
better. 


TO   BISHOP   HTJGHES.  59 

On  these  subjects,  dear  sir,  your  church  must  re-" 
turn  to  the  standard  of  the  Bible,  and  of  common 
sense,  before  I  can  return  to  it. 

Another  of  the  reasons  which  prevent  my  return 
is,  the  obstructions  which  your  church  raises  be- 
tween me  and  my  God.  My  Bible,  that  hated  book 
by  pope,  prelate,  priest  and  papal  peasant,  teaches 
me  that  if  any  man  sin  he  has  an  Advocate  with 
the  Father — Jesus  Christ.  It  every  where  teaches 
me,  that  I  may  have  free  access  to  God  through 
Jesus  Christ,  that  if  I  sin,  I  may  go  for  pardon 
directly  to  the  throne  of  God,  through  the  mediation 
of  his  Son.  And  this  is  a  precious  privilege ;  a 
privilege  which  may  be  enjoyed  by  all,  ''tviihout 
money  and  without  j^rice.'^  Now  what  do  you  ask 
of  me  to  do  in  order  to  receive  the  forgiveness  of 
sin,  and  to  be  restored  to  the  favor  of  God  ?  You 
send  me  to  Peter  or  Paul,  or  some  other  saint  on  the 
catalogue,  who  may  have  never  known  me ;  and 
who  may  never  hear  me,  if  I  pray  unto  them.  Or 
you  send  me  to  Mary,  whom  you  blasphemously 
call  the  Mother  of  God,  to  ask  her  to  intercede  for 
me.  Nor  will  this  suffice.  I  must  go  to  your  Con- 
fessional, and  tell  you  all  my  sins ;  incurring  the 
fearful  penalty  of  refusal  of  pardon  if  I  withhold 
one.  Thus  you  take  from  me  the  privilege  of  go- 
ing to  God  for  myself,  a  privilege  purchased  for  me 
by  the  death  of  Christ.  You  tell  me  I  must  go  to 
^e  priest ;  and  from  the  priest  to  the  saint,  or  to  the 
Virgin ;  and  the  Saint  or  Virgin  will  go  for  me  to 


60  kirwan's  letters 

the  Saviour ;  and  he  will  go  for  me  to  the  Fathei ! 
And  then  when  pardon  is  granted,  it  goes  from  the 
Father  to  the  Son — from  him  to  the  Saint  or  Virgin 
— from  him  or  her  to  the  priest ;  and  when  in  the 
hands  of  the  priest,  he  will  give  me  ahsolution,  if  I 
pay  for  it  /  Will  you  say,  dare  you  say,  that  this 
is  a  caricature  of  your  teachings  upon  this  matter  ? 
Would  to  God  you  could,  with  truth !  Why  send 
me  to  the  saints  to  ask  them  to  intercede  for  me,  if 
this  is  untrue  1  That  I  am  a  sinner,  I  know  and 
feel.  That  there  is  pardon  for  me  through  the 
atonement  of  Jesus  Christ,  on  my  repentance  and 
faith,  is  a  precious  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  and  of  my 
creed.  That  pardon  I  receive  the  moment  I  sin- 
cerely exercise  the  graces  of  repentance  and  faith ; 
— yes,  and  not  a  M^hit  the  less  freely,  if  all  of  you, 
pope,  patriarchs,  prelates  and  priests,  were  with 
Pharaoh  and  his  chariots. 

And  why  turn  me  away  from  the  door  of  mercy, 
and  compel  me  to  speak  to  miy  heavenly  Father  by 
proxy  ?  Why  call  me  away  from  the  cross,  and 
send  me  to  a  priest,  or  a  saint,  or  a  virgin,  to  ask 
them  to  do  for  me  what  I  can  better  do  for  myself? 
Where  has  my  Saviour  taught  me  that  I  can  only 
address  him  through  a  priestly  attorney,  that  I  must 
fee,  however  poor,  for  his  services  ?  O,  ask  me  to 
do  any  thing — to  bale  the  ocean — to  tame  the  hurri- 
cane— to  arrest  the  sun — rather  than  ask  me  to  re- 
turn to  your  church,  until  every  thing  is  removed 
which  forbids  the  free  access  of  my  soul  to  my  God, 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES.  61 

— which  suspends  my  salvation  on  any  thing  else 
than  repentance  towards  God,  and  faith  in  our  Lord 
Jesus  Cnrist.  You  must  pull  down  your  toll-gates 
on  the  way  of  life,  before  you  see  me  back. 

The  statement  of  a  few  additional  reasons  I  hope 
to  give  you  in  my  next. 

With  great  respect,  yours, 

KiRWAN. 


LETTER  YIII. 

Farther  reasons  for  not  returning  to  the  papal  church — Cehbacy  of  the  cler- 
gy— Auricular  confessions — A  call  on  Irish  papists  to  assert  their  rights. 

My  dear  Sir, — In  my  last  letter  I  entered  on  the 
statement  of  the  reasons  which  yet  prevent  me  from 
returning  to  the  pale  of  your  church.  I  adverted 
only  to  four :  your  virtual  prohibition  of  the  Bible ; 
the  way  and  manner  of  your  public  worship  of 
God ; — your  ceremonial  law,  which  burdens  and 
crushes,  without  instructing  or  correcting  the  con- 
science ;  and  the  obstructions  which  you  erect  be- 
tween my  soul  and  my  God.  These,  or  either  of 
them,  would  be  reason  sufficient  not  merely  to  ex- 
cuse, but  to  forbid,  my  ever  returning  to  your  com- 
munion. For  me  to  give  farther  reasons  would 
seem  to  be  a  little  like  your  doctrine  of  Supereroga- 
tion, which  is  not  among  the  least  of  the  absurd 
errors  of  your  infallible  church ;  but  as  the  argu- 

6 


62  kirwan's  letters 

ment  is  cumulative,  you  will  bear  with  me  whilst  I 
proceed  to  the  statement  of  a  few  others. 

I  cannot  return  to  your  church,  until  you  cease 
teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments  ol  men 
Permit  me  here  to  say,  dear  sir,  that,  without  a  soli- 
tary exception,  the  things  which  are  peculiar  to 
your  church, — the  things  which  m.ake  it  distinctively 
what  it  is,  are  the  commandments  of  men,  either  in 
direct  opposition  to  the  teachings  of  the  Bible,  or 
based  upon  the  most  gross  perversion  of  its  mean- 
ing. In  as  brief  a  manner  as  possible,  permit  me 
to  illustrate  this  position. 

Your  church  teaches  and  enjoins  the  celibacy  of 
its  clergy,  in  language  the  most  pointed  and  posi- 
tive ;  and  the  Council  of  Trent  hurls  its  anathemas 
against  all  who  would  assert  the  contrary  doctrine, 
or  who  would  admit  the  lawfulness  of  the  marriage 
of  a  priest.  Thus  you  forbid  the  priest  to  marry — 
you  damn  him  if  he  does  marry — and  you  anathe- 
matize all  who  think  or  say  that  in  marrying  he 
sinned  not  against  God  or  man.  All  this,  you  ad- 
mit, is  so.  Now,  then,  I  ask  your  authority  for  so 
teaching.  I  ask  not  your  ecclesiastical,  but  your 
scriptural  authority.  Did  not  the  Jewish  priests 
marry  ?  Was  not  Peter  your  first  pope  ?  This 
you  assert.  And  was  not  Peter's  wife's  mother  sick 
of  a  fever  ?  Matt.  8  :  14.  Pope  Peter,  then,  had  a 
wife.  Why  would  it  be  a  mortal  sin  in  pope  Piua 
IX.  to  have  one  also  ?  Would  he  be  the  less  pious 
or  moral  on  that  account  ?     You,  «ir,  are  a  bishop. 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES.  63 

How  far  you  are  a  scriptural  bishop,  is  not  now  the 
inquiry.  But  Paul  in  writing  to  Timothy  says,  "  A 
bishop  must  be  the  husband  of  one  wife  ....  having 
his  children  in  subjection  with  all  gravity."  And 
even  poor  "  deacons,"  the  lowest  order  of  your  min- 
istry, are  thus  instructed  by  Paul,  "  Let  the  deacons 
be  the  husbands  of  one  wife,  ruling  their  children 
and  their  own  houses  well."     1  Tim,  3  :  12. 

Now,  dear  sir,  put  these  things  together,  and  see 
in  what  a  position  they  place  you  !  Peter,  your  first 
pope,  had  a  wife ;  and  you  damn  to  the  depths  of 
perdition  any  pope  that  would,  in  this  respect,  follow 
pope  Peter !  Challoner  says  that  he  had  no  com- 
merce with  his  wife  after  he  was  made  an  apostle  !  ? 
Will  you  tell  me  how  Challoner  found  that  out  ? 
Deacons  and  bishops  are  commanded,  or  at  least  per- 
mitted to  have  wives,  and  you  would  empty  the 
seven  vials  of  your  wrath,  and  pour  all  the  anathe- 
mas of  Trent  upon  the  head  of  the  priest  or  bishop 
that,  in  obeying  God,  would  disobey  your  church ! 
Is  it  possible  for  you  and  the  Bible  to  be  in  more 
direct  opposition  ?  Is  it  wrong  to  conclude  that,  in 
thus  forbidding  to  marry,  your  church  gives  at  least 
one  evidence  that  it  is  the  Antichrist  ?  Will  you 
favor  me,  dear  sir,  with  a  common -sense  exposition 
of  the  meaning  of  Paul,  1  Tim.  4 :  3,  where  he 
brands  "  forbidding  to  marry "  as  a  doctrine  of 
"  devils  ?  "  If  half  as  literal  in  the  exposition  of 
Paul,  as  in  your  exposition  of,  "  this  is  my  ]x)dy,** 


04  kirwan's  letters 

*Uhis  is  my  blood,"  how  will  you  avoid  the  infer- 
ence that  you  are  a  devil  ? 

Again  ;  your  church  enpins  confession,  under  the 
most  stringent  rules-  To  this  I  have  already  ad- 
verted in  former  letters.  I  advert  to  it  again  to 
illustrate  how  you  leach  for  doctrines  the  command- 
ments of  men.  The  Council  of  Trent  teaches  that 
*'  it  is  the  duty  of  every  man  who  hath  fallen  after 
baptism  to  confess  his  sins  at  least  once  a  year  to  a 
priest."  It  teaches  that  "  this  confession  of  sin  is  to 
be  secret,  for  public  confession  is  neither  commanded 
nor  expedient."  It  teaches  that  "  this  confession  of 
sin  must  be  very  exact  and  particular,  together  with 
all  circumstances,  and  that  it  extend  to  the  most 
secret  sins,  even  of  thought  or  against  the  9th  or  10th 
Commandment."  You  know  you  omit  the  2nd 
Commandment  which  forbids  your  bowing  to  pic- 
tures and  images,  and  divide  the  10th  into  two,  so  as 
to  make  up  the  9th  and  10th,  and  thus  complete  the 
number.  On  receiving  confession  as  thus  ordained, 
the  priest  pronounces  absolution  upon  the  penitent, 
*'  not  conditional  or  declarative  only,  but  absolute 
and  judicial."  When  I  remember  the  use  which 
your  church  has  made  of  this  doctrine,  and  the  fearful 
power  which  it  gives  the  priest  over  the  people,  my 
heart  swells  with  emotion  as  I  pen  these  lines ;  and, 
like  the  angel  of  Manoah's  sacrifice,  my  thanksgiv- 
ings ascend  to  hea  ^en,  that  I  have  escaped  the  snare 
of  the  fowler. 

r 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  65 

Now,  Sir,  let  me  again  turn  querist  and  ask  you 
where  in  the  Bible  do  you  find  your  doctrine  of  con- 
fession taught  ?  With  me  the  teachings  of  all  youf 
Councils  weigh  not  a  feather ;  give  me,  if  you  can, 
Bible  authority.  Is  there  one  text  from  Genesis  to 
Revelation,  which  you,  as  a  scholar,  will  say  teaches 
it  ?  I  put  this  question  to  you,  not  as  a  bishop,  but 
as  a  scholar.  A  priest  from  Maynooth,  taught  there 
only  to  mumble  the  Missal ;  or  a  poor  unlettered 
peasant  from  Mayo  or  Galway,  into  whose  lips  words 
are  put,  as  into  the  mouth  of  a  parrot,  might  quote 
to  me  James  v.  16,  which  says,  "Confess  your 
faults  one  to  another  ;"  but  will  you  do  it  ?  They 
might  tell  me  that  the  Pharisees  were  baptized  of 
John  Baptist,  "  confessing  their  sins" — that  at  Ephe- 
sus,  "  many  that  believed  came  and  confessed, 
and  showed  their  deeds" — but  will  you  do  it  ?  If 
James  is  your  authority,  are  not  you  bound  to  con- 
fess to  me,  if  I  am  to  you  ?  "  Confess  your  faults 
one  to  another  j'^ — if  this  text  teaches  auricular  con- 
fession, I  hold  you  to  it.  When  did  you  put  the 
poor  Irishman,  who  whispered  his  sins  into  your  ears, 
in  your  seat  in  the  Confessional,  and  kneeling  down 
outside,  whisper  through  the  little  square  hole  cut 
in  its  side,  your  sins  into  his  ear  ?  This  would  be 
confessing  your  sins  one  to  another.  Did  you  ever 
do  this,  Sir '?  Never,  never.  I  ask  you  again,  not 
as  a  bishop,  but  as  a  scholar,  whether  a  single  text 
quoted  by  Challoner,  or  Butler,  or  Hay,  gives  a  sha- 
dow of  countenance  to  your  doctrine  of  confession  ? 

6* 


66  KIRWAN  S    LETTERS 

Lay  aside  your  mitre,  your  crosier,  your  crook,  and 
your  canonicals,  and  look  at  those  texts  as  simple 
John  Hughes,  and  then  answer  my  question.  How 
can  you  account  to  man  or  to  God  for  the  erection 
of  such  an  awful  institution  as  Auricular  Confession, 
upon  the  merest  perversion  of  Scripture,  a  perver- 
sion which  has  neither  sense  nor  wit  to  excuse  it, 
and  without  a  solitary  text  or  example  in  the  Bible 
to  sustain  it?  O,  why  will  you  do  as  a  priest, 
what  you  would  not  do  as  a  scholar,  or  as  a  man  ? 

And,  then,  what  aggravates  the  whole  matter  is, 
that  every  man  who  is  made  a  priest,  no  matter  how 
ignorant  or  wicked,  feels  himself  divinely  appointed 
of  heaven  to  confess  sinners,  and  to  absolve  them 
from  their  sins  !  No  matter  if  he  is  a  Judas,  he  has 
the  same  authority  to  confess  and  absolve  as  Peter ! 
A  priest,  Sir,  under  your  own  jurisdiction,  and  I  am 
sorry  to  say,  an  Irishman  also,  was  heard  thus  to 
address  the  ostler  of  the  hotel  at  which  he  boarded, 
on  returning  from  Mass  on  Sabbath  afternoon, 
**  Pat,  get  up  my  horse,  I  have  to  go  and  confess  a 
poor  devil  who  is  dying  five  or  six  miles  out  in  the 
country."  I  would  not  say  this  wretch  is  a  fair  sam- 
ple of  all  your  priests  :  I  hope  otherwise.  But  there 
are  too  many  like  him !  And  he  has  the  same 
power  to  confess  and  absolve  that  you  have,  against 
w  hose  character  I  know  nothing,  save  that  you  sus- 
tain a  system  which  you  must  know  to  be  as  false 
as  the  Koran. 

I  would  implore  you,  my  dear  sir,  to  review  this 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  67 

doctrine  of  your  church.  As  to  the  word  of  God  it 
is  baseless  as  the  fabric  of  a  vision.  It  was  un- 
known in  the  Jewish  church  ;  it  is  untaught  in  the 
Christian  Scriptures.  It  crept  into  your  church 
during  the  dark  ages.  It  was  nailed  upon  it  at 
Trent.  It  is  clearly  a  device  of  man,  and  in  terri- 
ble opposition  to  some  of  the  plainest  precepts  of 
God's  word.  It  gives  power  to  the  priest,  and  en- 
slaves the  people.  It  has  been  to  your  church,  in 
every  land,  a  fearful  source  of  corruption.  Every 
thing  is  beneath  you  but  the  truth.  Reject  the  lie, 
however  long  it  may  have  been  told,  and  however 
it  may  increase  your  income  and  influence.  No 
longer  prostitute  your  fine  talents  and  education  in 
maintaining  this  religious  juggle,  but  send  the  sin- 
ner to  the  cross,  telling  him  that  whosoever  shall 
there  confess  and  forsake  his  sin,  shall  find  mercy. 
In  this  thing  show  yourself  a  man ;  and  the  bless- 
ings of  unborn  generations  will  be  upon  you. 

And  could  I  address  myself  to  every  papist  upon 
whom  the  sun  shines.  I  would  say  to  them  all,  and 
especially  to  those  of  your  country  and  mine,  tJw, 
doctrine  of  confession,  is  a  'priestly  device  to  gain  an 
absolute  authority  over  your  consciences.  You  are 
no  more  bound  to  confess  to  a  priest,  than  he  is  to 
confess  to  you.  And  as  to  the  doctrine  of  Absolu- 
tion, connected  with  Confession,  it  is  simply  blasphe- 
my. God  only  can  forgive  sin.  And  were  it  not 
for  the  fees  connected  with  your  Confession  and  Ab- 
solution, there  is  not  a  priest  upon  the  face  of  the 


€8  kirwan's  letters 

earth  that  would  care  a  straw  about  your  Confes- 
sion, or  that  would  commit  the  blasphemy  of  for- 
giving your  sins.  If  bishops  or  priests  will  not,  in 
this  day  of  light,  cut  in  pieces  the  net  wove  in  the 
dark  ages  to  confine  and  trammel  you,  it  is  in  youi 
power  to  rise  and  tear  it  in  pieces.  Irish  Roman 
Catholics !  our  fathers  fought  and  bled  and  died,  to 
obtain  for  themselves  and  for  us  civil  liberty.  Their 
blood  shed  by  British  bayonets  in  these  struggles  for 
their  civil  rights,  have  crimsoned  every  stream  and 
fattened  every  field  of  Ireland.  And  will  you,  their 
sons,  bow  your  necks  to  a  priestly  tyranny,  which 
debases  you  mentally  and  morally  '?  Will  you  give 
yourselves  to  be  led,  and  rode,  and  robbed,  by  priests 
who  come  to  you  pretending  that  the  keys  of  heaven 
hang  by  their  girdle,  and  that  it  is  with  them  to  let 
you  in,  or  shut  you  out  at  pleasure  ?  No  man  can 
be  a  slave  whilst  his  soul  is  free ;  nor  can  any  man 
be  free,  whilst  his  soul  is  in  bondage. 

There  is,  Rev.  sir,  one  confession  which  I  freely 
make  to  you ;  my  spirit  waxes  warm  when  I  think 
or  write  upon  the  absurdities  of  your  church — upon 
its  flagrant  perversions  of  the  Scriptures — upon  its 
shameful  impositions  upon  the  ignorant  and  credu- 
lous— upon  the  unblushing  effrontery  with  which  it 
teaches  for  divine  doctrines  the  commandments  of 
men.  And  I  assure  you  that  my  warmth  of  feeling 
is  not  diminished  when  I  consider  that  a  man  of 
your  character  and  country,  could  consent  to  be  a 
chief  workman  in  this  bad  business.     Irishmen  have 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  69 

their  faults ;  but  they  are  not  usually  those  of  du- 
plicity, or  perversion  of  the  truth.  And,  hence, 
whilst  they  may  make  good  papists,  they  make  bad 
lesuits. 

I  regret  to  find  that  I  must  end  this  letter  without 
ending  my  illustrations  of  the  way  and  manner  in 
which  you  teach  for  doctrines  the  commandments 
of  men.     This  I  hope  to  do  in  my  next. 
With  great  respect,  yours, 

KiRWAN. 


LETTEE  IX. 

Reas<Nis  which  prevent  from  returning  to  the  papal  church  continued — Pur- 
gatory— Transubstantiation. 

My  dear  Sir, — I  will  proceed  with  the  statement 
of  the  reasons  which  prevent  me  from  returning  to 
the  pale  of  your  church.  I  have  reached  my  fifth 
reason ;  your  teaching  for  doctrines  of  divine  au- 
thority the  commandments  of  men.  I  entered  upon 
the  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  you  do  this  in 
my  last,  and  without  ending  my  illustrations  ended 
my  letter.  Permit  me  to  state  a  few  more,  for  your 
candid  consideration. 

The  doctrine  of  Purgatory  is  one  of  the  peculiar 
doctrines  of  your  church.  You  teach  that  nearly 
all  Christians  when  they  die  are  "  neither  so  per- 
fectly pure  and  clean  as  to  exempt  them  from  the 
least  spot  or  stain;  nor  yet  so  unhappy  as  to  die 


70  kirwan's  letters 

under  the  guilt  of  unrepented  deadly  sin."  Il  is 
for  these  middling  Christians  that  you  make  a  pur- 
gatory, where  they  remain  until  they  make  full 
satisfaction  for  sin ;  and  then  they  go  to  heaven. 
And  the  "  Profession  of  Faith  "  of  Pius  IV.  tells  us 
"  that  the  souls  therein  detained  are  helped  by  the 
suffrages  of  the  faithful ;  that  is,  by  the  prayers 
and  the  alms  offered  for  them,  and  principally  by 
the  holy  sacrifice  of  the  Mass."  And  the  doctrine 
of  your  church  is  so  expounded  upon  this  matter 
that  but  few,  if  any,  die,  however  good,  without 
needing  purgatorial  purification ;  and  that  but  few 
are  so  bad  but  that  they  may  be  there  fitted  for 
heaven.  This  you  will  admit  is  a  fair  statement. 
The  more  you  get  into  purgatory,  the  more  you  will 
receive  of  the  "  suffrages  of  the  faithful,"  that  is,  of 
their  money. 

I  have  already  told  you  my  estimate  of  this  doc- 
trine. It  is  that  by  which  your  church  traffics  in 
the  souls  of  men ;  and  an  amazingly  profitable  traffic 
it  makes  of  it.  It  has  placed  in  your  possession 
riches  far  exceeding  in  value  the  mines  of  Peru. 
And  because  of  the  value  of  this  doctrine  you  seek 
in  all  possible  ways  to  sustain  it.  With  me  the  au- 
thority of  your  popes  and  councils  is  not  worth  a 
penny.  1  would  rather  have  one  text  of  Scripture 
bearing  upon  the  point  than  the  teachings  of  as 
many  such  as  you  could  string  between  here  and 
Jupiter.  Let  us  then  look  at  the  chief  texts  adduced 
to  sustain  a  purgatory. 


TO    3ISH0?    HUGHES.  71 

One  of  these  texts  is  Matt.  12  :  32 :  "  Whosoever 
speaketh  against  the  Holy  Ghost  it  shall  not  be  for- 
given him,  neither  in  this  world,  neither  in  the  world 
to  come."  Matt.  5  :  26  is  another:  "Verily  I  say 
unto  thee,  thou  shalt  by  no  means  come  out  thence 
till  thou  hast  paid  the  uttermost  farthing."  Both 
these,  you  say,  refer  to  purgatory.  From  the  one 
you  conclude  that  sins  may  be  forgiven  in  the  next 
world — from  the  other,  that  none  can  get  out  of  pur- 
gatory till  the  last  farthing  is  paid.  Now,  dear  sir, 
let  me  ask  you,  how  you  put  these  texts  together  ? 
If  sins  are  forgiven,  how  or  why  is  payment  also 
required  to  the  last  farthing  ?  Can  I  forgive  a  debt 
and  yet  require  its  payment  ?  Look  at  the  first  text 
again  ;  you  find  purgatory  in  it,  but  how  ?  In  this 
way;  because  there  is  a  sin  which  will  not  be  for- 
given in  this  world  nor  in  the  world  to  come,  therefore 
there  is  a  sin  that  will  be  forgiven  in  the  world  to 
come  ! !  Such  is  the  lo2;ic  of  infallible  Rome !  Bo- 
cause  a  certain  sin  is  not  to  be  forgiven  here  or 
hereafter,  therefore  many  sins  will  be  forgiven  here- 
after !  And  because  "  this  world"  and  "  the  world 
to  come"  is  inclusive  of  all  time  and  place,  Popery 
builds  up  a  place  which  belongs  neither  to  this 
world  nor  to  the  world  to  come,  and  fills  it  with  fire, 
a?.d  calls  it  Purgatory !  Like  Mahomet's  coffin,  it 
floats  somewhere  between  heaven  and  heil.  Into 
this  world  of  fire  you  drive  the  souls  of  men  as 
they  leave  the  body,  and  let  them  out  only  on  the 
reception  of  "  the  suffrages  of  the  faithful" — that 


72  KIR  WAN's    LETTERS 

is,  their  money  .'     Now,  sir,  what  do  you  say  U)  all 
this? 

But,  you  ask,  are  there  not  other  texts  quoted  by 
our  writers  to  sustain  Purgatory  as  a  Scriptural  in- 
stitution ?  O  yes,  but  they  are  as  far  from  the  poi^it 
as  the  most  vivid  imaginatiot.  can  well  conceive. 
They  are  by  the  diameter  of  the  heavens  farther 
from  the  point,  than  those  just  quoted.  Let  any 
intelligent  man  read  chapter  xiv.  of  Challoner's 
"  Catholic  Christian,"  and  he  will  rise  from  it  with 
amazement  that  God  could  ever  leave  men  to  the 
folly  of  so  perverting  Scripture ;  or  that  even  the 
devil  could  permit  them  so  absurdly  to  misapply  it. 
Permit  me  to  quote  an  instance  by  way  of  illustra- 
tion. We  are  taught  in  Matt.  12 :  36,  that  we  must 
give  an  account  for  every  idle  word  in  the  day  of 
judgment.  Now  how  does  this  text  prove  a  Purga- 
tory ?  In  this  wise  :  "  No  one  can  think  that  God 
will  condemn  a  soul  to  hell  for  every  idle  word ; 
therefore  there  must  be  a  purgatory  to  punish  those 
guilty  of  these  little  transgressions."  If  you  or  any 
mortal  man,  think  I  am  joking,  let  him  turn  to  the 
chapter.  Let  me  quote  the  answer  in  full  to  the 
question,  Are  not  souls  in  Purgatory  capable  of 
relief  in  that  state?  "Yes,  they,  are,  but  not  for 
any  thing  that  they  can  do  for  themselves,  but  from 
the  prayers,  alms,  and  other  siif  rages  offered  to  God 
for  them  by  the  faithful  upon  earth,  which  God  in 
his  mercy  is  pleased  to  accept  of,  by  reason  of  that 
communion  which  we  have  with   them,  by  being 


TO  BISHOP  hughes;  73 

fellow  members  of  the  same  body  of  the  Church, 
under  the  same  head,  which  is  Jesus  Christ." 
Now,  sir,  if  in  this  answer  you  substitute  the  word 
"priest"  for  "God,"  then  we  come  to  the  facts  in 
tlie  case.  The  "ahus"  and  the  other  "suffrages  of 
T  the  faithful,"  are  pocketed  by  the  priest.  And 
purgatory  was  invented  for  the  special  purpose  of 
securing  these  alms,  and  other  suffrages  of  the  faith- 
ful, to  pope,  prelates,  and  priests. 

Now,  sir,  let  me  ask  you  a  few  questions.  Per- 
haps I  have  asked  you  too  many  already ;  but  you 
will  bear  with  a  fellow-countryman,  anxious,  not  so 
much  to  embarrass  you,  as  to  bring  out  the  truth. 
What  has  the  blood  of  Christ,  which  cleanses  from 
all  sin,  to  do  with  the  venial  sins  of  those  middling 
Christians  who  die,  not  good  enough  to  go  to  heaven, 
nor  bad  enough  to  go  to  hell  ?  What  has  the  blood 
of  Christ,  his  atonement,  his  finished  work,  at  all  to 
do,  on  your  plan,  with  the  saving  of  the  sinner  ? 
If  my  child  should  die  and  go  to  purgatory,  would 
a  thousand  dollars  given  to  you  at  once,  have  the 
same  effect  as  a  hundred  dollars  a  year  for  ten 
years  ?  How  can  you  tell  when  enough  is  given 
to  get  the  soul  out ;  or  has  your  purse  no  bottom  ? 
As  souls  are  spirits  without  bodies,  how  can  you 
tell  one  soul  from  another  as  they  issue  from 
tlie  gates  of  purgatory  ?  In  the  prayer  "  Hail 
Mary,"  we  are  made  to  utteT  at  its  conclusion,  the 
following  petition :  "  Holy  Mary,  Mother  of  God, 
pray  for  us   sinners,  now  and  at  the  hour  of  our 

7 


74  KIRWAN  S   LETTERS 

death  ;"  why  not  solicit  her  to  pray  for  us  after  our 
death,  to  get  us  out  of  purgatory  ?  Is  it  because 
you  are  afraid  the  good  woman  would  get  us  out 
before  the  priests  had  gotten  enough  of  the  "  alms 
and  suffrages  of  the  faithful  ?" 

My  dear  sir,  the  absurdities  connected  with  your 
doctrine  of  purgatory  are  sickening.  It  is  based  on 
the  love  of  money.  The  bishop  of  Air  candidly 
confesses  that  it  is  not  revealed  in  the  Scriptures. 
It  came  into  the  church  in  the  seventh  century,  it 
was  affirmed  in  the  twelfth ; — it  was  stereotyped  at 
Trent ;  and  fearful  anathemas  are  hurled  at  all  who 
deny  it.  It  puts  away  the  work  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  sends  the  sinner,  not  to  "  the  blood  of  sprin- 
kling," but  to  the  fire  of  purgatory,  in  order  to 
secure  a  meetness  for  heaven.  And  why  this  parody 
— this  caricature  of  the  religion  of  God  1  Simply 
to  put  "  the  alms  and  the  suffrages  of  the  faithful" 
in  the  pockets  of  your  priests !  What  an  outrage 
upon  the  common  sense  of  the  world  to  have  men, 
dressed  up  in  canonicals,  teaching  things  as  true, 
of  which  the  beast  that  Balaam  rode  might  well  be 
ashamed ! 

I  entreat  you,  my  dear  sir,  to  review  this  doctrine 
of  your  church.  You,  surely,  must  see  its  ab- 
surdity. Neither  in  the  word  of  God,  nor  in  the 
common  reason  of  man,  is  there  the  shadow  of  an 
argument  to  sustain  it.  Nor  is  there  a  class  of 
men  upon  the  face  of  the  earth  who  deserve  a  pur- 
gatory from  which  "  the  alms  and  other  suffrages  of 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  75 

the  faithful "  would  never  release  them,  as  do  those 
who  preach  up  a  purgatory  and  its  fearful  torments, 
for  the  sake  of  filthy  lucre.  But,  as  Father  O'Leary 
said  to  Canning,  ''  I  am  afraid  many  of  them  will 
go  farther  and  fare  worse."  My  high  respect  for 
you  renders  me  solicitous  that  you  should  not  he  of 
the  number.  I  wish  you  not  to  be  one  of  the  dumb 
herd  who  hold  the  truth  in  unrighteousness,  and  be- 
lieve a  lie  that  they  may  be  damned. 

Transubstantiation  is  another  of  the  peculiar  doc- 
trines of  your  church.  By  this  you  teach,  that,  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  the  bread  and  the  wine  are  con- 
verted into  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  by  the 
consecration  of  the  priest.  The  thing  is  so  absurd 
as  to  confute  itself;  and  as,  therefore,  to  require 
from  me  but  a  brief  statement.  Challoner,  Chap.  V., 
thus  states  the  doctrine :  "  The  bread  and  wine  are 
changed  by  the  consecration  into  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ."  "  Is  it  then  the  belief  of  the  Church 
that  Jesus  Christ  himself,  true  God  and  true  man,  is 
truly,  really,  and  substantially  present  in  the  blessed 
sacrament  ?  It  is,  for  where  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  are,  there  his  soul  also  and  his  divinity  needs 
be.  And  consequently  there  must  be  whole  Christ, 
God  and  man :  there  is  no  taking  him  to  pieces-" 
And  all  this  is  proven  to  demonstration  by  ihe 
quoting  of  the  words  of  Christ  at  the  institution  cf 
the  Supper,  "  This  is  my  body,"  "  This  is  my  blood." 

Now,  sir,  if  you  and  your  church  had  only  the 
common  sense  to  look  for  the  true  meaning  of  the 


76  kirwan's  letters 

two  little  words  "is"  and  "this"  in  the  above  sen- 
tences of  the  Saviour,  it  would  have  saved  you  a 
world  of  trouble.  Look  at  one  or  two  similar  pas- 
sages :  "  The  seven  good  kine  are  seven  years— 
and  the  seven  good  ears  are  seven  years." — Gen.  41 : 
26.  "  The  seven  stars  are  the  angels  of  the  seven 
churches." — Rev.  1 :  20.  "  The  seven  heads  are 
the  seven  mountains." — Rev.  17:  9.  The  sense  is 
plain  here.  They  signify  those  things.  So  the 
word  "  is "  may  mean  to  signify.  Now  for  the 
'word  '^'this."  It  obviously  refers  to  the  bread.  I 
will  have  none  of  your  nonsense  about  "  the  sub- 
stance contained  under  the  species."  It  is  darken- 
ing counsel  by  words  without  knowledge.  So  that 
the  simple,  natural,  reasonable,  scriptural  sense  is : 
"  This  bread  signifies  or  represents  my  body " — 
"  This  wine  signifies  or  represents  my  blood." 
Just  see  how  a  little  common  sense  simplifies  every 
thing! 

Now,  turning  back  to  your  interpretation,  permit 
me  in  view  of  it  to  ask  you  a  few  questions :  Did 
the  apostles  at  the  first  institution  of  the  Supper,  eat 
the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ  ?  So  your  church 
must  and  does  teach  !  What  power  have  you,  more 
than  I  have,  to  work  such  a  miracle  as  to  change  a 
little  wafer  into  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ  ? 
If  you  stickle  so  much  for  the  letter  in  your  inter- 
pretation of  "  Tins  is  my  body,"  "  This  is  my  blood," 
why  withhold  the  wine  from  all  but  the  priests  ? 
Why  give  up  the  bread  for  a  wafer  ?     If  some  wag 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  77 

should  mix  arsenic  with  the  wafer  before  consecra- 
"iHon,  would  you  be  willing  .o  take  it  after  you  had 
changed  it  into  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ  ? 
You  place  great  dependence  on  John  6  :  56.  You 
take  it  literally.  Will  you  take  the  whole  connec- 
tion literally  ?  Then  he  that  eateth  this  bread  shall 
live  for  ever.  He  that  eats  this  bread  will  never  hun- 
ger. All  that  you  have  to  do,  if  your  principle  is 
true,  is  to  give  your  wafer  to  the  poor,  famishing 
Irish,  and  thev  huno^er  no  more ! 

But  the  thing  is  too  outrageously  absurd  to  dwell 
upon  !  Nothing  equals  it  in  absurdity  in  all  pagan- 
ism. If  a  man  should  mumble  a  few  words  over  a 
stone,  and  tell  you  it  was  converted  by  these  words 
into  bread,  what  would  you  say  to  him  ?  If,  against 
all  the  evidences  of  your  senses,  he  should  seriously 
assert  that  it  was  bread; — and  if,  in  addition,  he 
should  seriously  assert  that  unless  you  believed  that 
stone  to  be  bread  you  must  be  damned,  would  you 
not  be  for  putting  him  in  a  strait  jacket  ? 

But  I  must  bring  this  letter  to  a  close.  These 
are  but  a  few  of  the  illustrations  of  the  way  and 
manner  in  which  you  teach  for  doctrines  the  com- 
mandments of  men.  And  without  at  all  exhausting 
tlie  subject,  I  must  here  close  my  statement  of  the 
reasons  which  forbid  me  to  return  lo  the  pale  of 
your  church.  When  I  give  up  my  Bible  for  the 
conunandments  of  men,  they  must  have  learning, 
or  genius,  or  wit,  or  something  to  recommend  them. 


78  kirwan's  letters 

They  must  be,  at  least,  good  nonsense,  which,  you 
know,  to  an  Irishman  is  quite  interesting. 
With  great  respect,  yours, 

KiRWAN. 


LETTER  X. 

Is  the  Church  of  Rome  a  Church  of  Christ  » 

My  DEAR  Sir, — I  have  with  all  frankness  and  hon- 
esty stated  to  you  the  reasons  which  yet  prevent  me 
from  returning  to  the  pale  of  your  church.  And  al- 
though I  have  stated  but  five,  which  are  scarcely  a 
tithe  of  those  that  press  themselves  forward  for 
utterance,  yet,  if  not  to  you,  they  are  to  myself  and 
I  think  are  to  all  unbiassed  minds  entirely  sufficient. 
I  have  even  the  faith  to  believe  that  you  yourself 
will  deem  them  sufficient ;  and  that  were  it  not  for 
the  peculiarity  of  your  position,  and  your  plighted 
oath,  to  sustain  your  church,  right  or  wrong,  that 
they  would  have  the  same  effect  upon  your  mind 
and  conduct  that  they  have  upon  mine. 

Whilst  reviewing  and  weighing  these  reasons,  the 
questions  have  arisen  before  my  mind.  Is  the  Roman 
Catholic,  a  church  of  Christ  ?  Has  it  so  far  depart- 
ed from  the  truth,  or  so  grie'^-ously  perverted  it,  as  to 
forfeit  all  claim  to  that  title  ^  These  are  questions  of 
grave  import,  which  I  will  not  undertake  to  decide. 
But  I  wish  to  state  to  you  in  the  present  letter,  how 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  79 

some  things  bearing  on  these  questions  strike  nme, 
and  then  1  will  submit  the  decision  of  them  to  your- 
self.    To  this,  surely,  you  will  make  no  objection. 

The  external  organization  of  your  church  is  ob- 
viously not  that  taught  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles. 
As  to  this  matter,  every  Jiing  in  the  Bible  is  simple. 
The  kinojdom  of  Christ  is  not  of  outward  observation — 
its  seat  is  in  the  hearts  and  affections  of  men — its  ele- 
ments are  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  great  object  of  the  Apostles  and  first 
preachers  of  the  doctrines  of  Christ  was  to  win  men 
to  the  belief  and  to  the  practice  of  the  truth.  When 
men  believed  the  truth,  they  were  baptized,  and  were 
thus  introduced  into  the  communion  of  the  saints ;  and 
not  a  word  is  said  about  popes,  patriarchs,  cardinals, 
m.etropolitans,  prelates,  or  of  the  duty  of  implicit 
obedience  to  their  authority.  There  is  a  government 
enjoined,  but  it  is  as  free  and  as  simple  as  one  can 
well  conceive  ;  whilst  yours  is  as  desputic,  and  as 
absurdly  pompous  as  one  can  well  imagine.  As 
your  external  organization  is  not  taught  in  the  Bible, 
where  did  you  get  it  ? 

The  answer  to  this  question  to  my  mind  is  plain. 
As  the  early  Church  advanced  in  numbers,  influence, 
and  wealth,  it  gradually  lost  the  martyr  spirit  of  its 
founders.  Its  ministers  became  corrupt,  secular,  and 
ambitious.  By  degrees,  bishops,  from<an  office,  be- 
came an  order.  As  Rome  was  tiie  metropolis  of  the 
world,  and  it  was  there  that  the  greatest  number  of 
martyrs  had  shed  their  blood,  the  bishop  of  the  metro- 


80  kirwan's  letters 

politan  city  soon   became  pre-eminent  among  his 
brethren.    Now  the  State  sought  the  influence  of  the 
church  to  assist  in  maintaining  its  authority ;  and  the 
church  sought  the  influence  of  the  State  to  assist  in 
building  up  its  ghostly  dominion.     Each  yielded  to 
the  request  of  the  other.     The  church  rapidly  ex- 
tended ;  and  the  ambition  of  priests  conceived  the 
idea  of  governing  it  after  the  model  of  the  state. 
Rome  must  be  the  centre  of  ecclesiastical  as  of  civil 
power.    The  State  had  its  Csesar, — the  church  musl 
have  its  pope.     Ca3sar  had  his  governors  of  prov in- 
ces, — the  pope  must  have  his  patriarchs.     The  gov- 
ernors had  their  subordinates;  and  these  again  theirs, 
down  to  the  very  lowest  office  ;  so  that  the  patriarchs 
had  their  archbishops ;  these  their  bishops ;  and  these 
their  priests ;  and  so  down  to  the  very  lowest  office  in 
the  church.    As  in  the  State  all  civil  authority  ema- 
nated from  Csesar,  and  all  disputes  were  finally  re- 
ferable to  him  ;  so  in  the  church  all  ecclesiastical 
authority  emanated  from  the  pope,  and  he  was  made 
the  final  judge  of  all  disputes.   Here,  sir,  is  the  origin 
of  your  ecclesiastical  government.  And  did  the  lim- 
its of  a  letter  permit,  I  could  run  out  this  parallel 
into  some  details  which  even  to  you  would  be  striking 
and  confounding.     Your  ecclesiastical  organization 
has  just  the  same  divine  warrant  that  that  of  Ma- 
hometanism,  or  Hindooism  has, — God  permits  it.  The 
Roman  Empire  has   passed  away ;    ages   ago   its 
mangled  limbs  were  strewn  over  the  earth.  But  in  that 
ecclesiastical  organization  called  Popery,  we  have 


TO    BISHOr   HUGHES.  81 

the  living  model  of  that  form  of  government  by 
which  the  Caesars  bound  the  nations  of  the  earth  to 
their  thrones  ;  and  by  which  they  were  enabled  to 
crush,  at  the  extremes  of  the  world,  every  effort  to 
break  the  yoke  of  servitude. 

How  far  all  this  bears  upon  the  question,  whether 
yours  is  a  church  of  Christ,  I  submit  to  your  candid 
decision.  When  weighing  this  matter,  I  would  entreat 
you  not  to  jeopardize  your  standing  as  a  scholar  and 
as  a  man  of  sense,  by  any  reference  to,  "  Thou  art 
Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  build  my  church.'' 
Leave  that  thing  to  the  boys  from  Maynooth,  with 
long  coats  and  short  brains. 

The  forms  and  method  of  your  public  worship  are 
obviously  not  those  taught  us  in  the  Bible.  I  enter 
3''our  church.  Saint  Patrick's,  to  worship  God.  I  am 
required  to  sprinkle  myself  with  Holy  Water,  and  to 
make  on  myself  the  sign  of  the  cross.  And  why,  or 
for  what  purpose  ?  That  I  may  be  defended  from 
unclean  spirits !  I  look  around  me,  and  I  see  a  for- 
est of  candles  burning  upon  the  altar.  And  for  what 
purpose  ?  where  is  this  commanded  ?  I  see  people 
counting  their  beads,  and  praying  before  pictures. 
Where  is  ihis  taught?  Now  comes  out  a  priest  in 
his  robes  exubroidered  with  crosses.  Did  Peter  or 
Paul  wear  such  things  when  teaching  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles the  faith  of  Christ  ?  He  says  nothing  to  ihe 
people,  but  goes  through  the  Mass  in  Latin,  of 
which  I  may  know  nothing.  Was  this  the  way  Peter 
and  Paul  did  ?     Then  come  out  boys  in  white  frocks, 


82  kirwan's  letters 

with  their  censers,  offering  incense  to  the  priest,  and 
filling  the  church  with  the  odour.  Were  Peter  and 
Paul  thus  incensed  ?  The  priest  goes  through  the 
service,  bowing,  and  kissing  the  altar,  now  lifting  up 
his  hands,  now  his  eyes ;  now  speaking  in  a  whisper, 
now  in  full  voice,  according  to  the  rules  laid  down. 
Now,  Sir,  where  did  you  get  these  things  ?  And  after 
the  ceremony  is  over,  I  again  cross  myself  with  Holy 
Water  and  retire.  This  is  your  public  worship  of 
God  every  where,  and  from  age  to  age ;  save,  that 
in  this  country  there  is  a  sermon,  on  sticking  to 
Mother  Church,  sometimes  added.  Have  you  the 
most  distant  idea  that  it  was  in  this  way  the  first 
Christians  worshipped  God  ?  The  manner  of  your 
public  worship  is  not  scriptural,  or  Christian ;  it  is 
heathen,  and  was  originally  adopted  for  the  seducing 
of  the  heathen  to  Christianity.  If  Peter  or  Paul 
could  be  introduced  to  Saint  Patrick's  when  you 
were  going  through  High  Mass,  and  were  told  that 
you  were  one  of  their  successors,  what  would  be 
their  astonishment !  What !  you  a  successor  of  the 
men  who  lived  by  catching  fish,  and  mending  nets, 
and  making  tents ! !  And  that  farce  in  which  you 
are  a  chief  actor  every  Sabbath,  the  exact  counter- 
part of  the  worship  instituted  by  the  apostles  ! !  Your 
manner  of  public  worship  is  not  only  unscriptural, 
but  in  direct  opposition  to  scripture ; — it  wants 
nothing  of  heathenism  but  the  name.  And  how  far 
all  this  bears  upon  the  question,  whether  yours  is  a 
church  of  Christ,  I  submit  to  your  candid  decision. 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  83 

The  Bible  is  God's  revealed  will  to  teach  us  what 
we  should  oelieve,  and  do.  This  Bible  your  church 
has  corrupted,  and  labours  to  suppress.  You  mix  up 
with  the  pure  word  of  God,  the  Apocrypha,  which 
lays  no  claim  to  inspiration,  and  whose  internal  evi- 
dences are  fatal  to  such  a  claim.  I  need  here  only 
mention  the  recommendation  of  the  Angel,  in  Tobit, 
io  make  smoke  out  of  the  heart  and  liver  of  a  fish,  to 
scare  devils  out  of  men  !  And  yet  this  Apocrypha  is 
of  more  use  to  you  than  all  the  Bible  besides !  You 
mutilate  the  ten  Commandments  written  on  stone  b/ 
the  finger  of  God !  You  mistranslate  the  Scriptures 
in  passages  innumerable,  to  bring  out  your  peculiar 
doctrines  ;  or  to  conceal  its  testimony  against  them. 
And  where  the  point  of  Scripture  cannot  be  broken 
or  blunted,  you  put  a  note  at  the  bottom  in  explana- 
tion. And  what  notes  !  To,ke  the  following  as  an 
illustration,  appended  to  Rom.  4.  7.  "  Blessed  are 
they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins 
are  covered."  "  That  is,  blessed  are  those  who,  by 
doing  penance  have  obtained  pardon  and  remission  of 
their  sins,  and  also  are  covered  ;  that  is,  newly  cov- 
ered with  the  habit  of  grace,  and  vested  with  the  stole 
of  charity."  Nor  is  the  work  of  corruption  yet  done. 
You  superadd  to  all  this  your  traditions,  which  like 
a  piece  of  Indian  rut  ber  you  can  stretch  or  contract 
to  suit  your  purpose.  Nor  can  the  Bible,  when  all 
this  is  done,  be  put  into  promiscuous  circulation,  l(;st, 
with  all  these  additions  and  corruptions,  some  might 
understand  it  as  teaching  some  things  in  opposition  to 


84  kirwan's  letters 

popery  !  You  tell  the  poor  Irishman  that  hi-s  spade 
and  hod  are  better  suited  to  him  than  the  Bible  ;  and 
the  poor  Irish  woman  that  she  had  better  keep  at  her 
broom,  and  wash-tub,  than  trouble  herself  about  the 
Gospels  '  When  you  corrupt  the  Bible  to  the  extent 
of  your  ability  ;  when  you  add  to  it  every  thing  you 
can,  or  dare  : — even  then  you  keep  it  from  the  people ! 
Why  thus  fearful  of  the  Bible  ? 

Now,  sir,  how  far  all  this  bears  upon  the  question 
whether  yours  is  a  church  of  Christ,  I  submit  to 
your  own  decision.  As  far  as  you  can,  you  strive 
to  supplant  the  Bible  as  the  only  rule  of  faith ;  and 
as  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  would  as  soon  strive  to 
grope  my  way  to  heaven  by  the  Koran,  as  by  that 
which  you  give  me  as  a  substitute  for  the  Bible. 
But  I  wish  not  to  forestall  your  decision. 

The  Sacraments,  instituted  in  condescension  to 
our  weakness,  are  outward  and  sensible  signs  of  in- 
ward and  spiritual  grace.  These,  like  the  Bible, 
you  have  enlarged  and  corrupted.  Christ  and  his 
Apostles  left  us  but  two ; — you  multiply  them  by 
three,  and  carry  one.  I  only  wonder  how  your  in- 
genuity permitted  you  to  stop  at  seven.  Here  you 
have  allowed  a  Dr.  Deacon,  a  dull  Englishman,  and, 
I  believe,  a  Protectant  in  the  bargain,  to  surpass  you  ! 
He  adds,  exorcism,  the  white  garment,  a  taste  of  milk 
and  honey,  &c.  How  easily  you  might  have  gone 
on  to  seven,  or  even  seventy  times  seven  !  But  in 
addition  to  multiplying,  you  have  most  grievously 
corrupted  the  two  that  are  taught  us  in  the  New 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  85 

Testament.  In  baptism  you  dip  or  pour  three 
times ;  where  is  this  taught  ?  Ordinarily  you  per- 
mit it  only  to  be  administered  in  churches  which 
have  fonts,  the  water  of  which  is  to  be  blessed  every 
year  on  the  vigils  of  Easter  and  Whit  Sunday ! 
Where  do  you  get  this  ?  Where  is  your  warrant 
for  the  absurd  practice  of  godfathers  and  godmo- 
thers ?  The  priest  blows  three  times  upon  the  face 
of  the  person  to  be  baptized,  saying,  "  Depart  out 
of  him  or  her,  O  unclean  spirit,  and  give  place  to 
the  Holy  Ghost"  ; — where  did  you  get  this  ?  He 
then  puts  a  grain  of  blessed  salt  into  the  mouth ; — 
then  he  exorcises  the  unclean  spirit,  because  the 
devil  must  go  out,  before  the  person  is  introduced 
into  the  church  !  Then  he  wets  his  finger  with  his 
spittle,  and  touches,  first,  the  ears,  saying,  "  Eph- 
phatha" — then  his  nostrils,  saying,  "  unto  the  odour 
of  sweetness."  "Be  thou  put  to  flight,  O  Devil!" 
And  when  baptized,  a  white  cloth  is  put  on  his  head, 
and  a  candle  in  his  hand.  Now  whence  all  these 
things  ?  Is  this  a  heathen  ceremony,  or  Christian 
baptism  ? 

•  Bad  as  all  this  is,  it  is  strong  common  sense  when 
compared  with  your  corruption  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. The  bread  and  wine  are  rejected  for  a  wafer 
— tliat  wafer  is  converted  into  God — the  wafer  God 
is  first  worshipped,  and  then  eaten !  And  to  believe 
all  this  shows  great  exaltation  of  faith  and  piety ! 
Some  things  would  appear  very  pious  were  they  not 
so  absurd  and  ludicrous. 

8 


86  kirwan's  letters 

Now,  sir,  how  far  this  multiplication  and  corrup- 
lion  of  the  sacraments  of  the  Christian  religion  en- 
ters into  the  question,  whether  or  not  yours  is  a 
church  of  Christ,  I  submit  again  to  your  own  deci- 
sion. 

Nor  have  you  permitted  a  single  leading  doctrine 
of  the  Bible  to  escape  your  efforts  to  pervert  them. 

The  Bible  holds  up  one  God  as  the  sole  object  of 
religious  worship.  You  teach  us  to  worship  the 
Virgin — the  host — the  cross ;  and  to  adore  angels — 
departed  saints — relics — and  even  pictures. 

The  Bible  teaches  that  our  only  access  to  God  is 
through  a  Redeemer,  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  made  unto 
us  of  God,  wisdom  and  righteousness  and  sanctifica- 
tion,  and  redemption,  and  that  through  faith  in  his 
name  we  are  made  partakers  of  the  blessings  of  his 
work  of  redemption.  You  teach  that  there  are 
other  intercessors  to  whom  we  must  apply — that  our 
own  works  are  efficacious  to  save  us — that  the  sacra- 
ments have  inherent  power  to  save — that  faith  in 
Christ  is  not  the  true  method  of  justification. 

The  Bible  teaches  that  we  must  be  born  again, 
created  anew  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  you  de- 
nounce as  a  false  and  accursed  doctrine,  and  teach 
us  that  we  are  regenerated  by  baptism,  and  kept  in 
a  state  of  salvation  by  confirmation,  confession,  pen- 
ance, fasts  and  alms. 

The  Bible  plainly  teaches  that  when  we  die  we 
go  to  heaven  or  to  hell,  like  Lazarus  and  the  rich 
man,  that  our  probation  is  confined  to  the  present 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  67 

state.  You  teach  us  that  there  is  a  third  state,  Pur- 
gatory, where  souls  are  purified  from  the  stains  of 
venial  sins,  and  thus  prepared  for  heaven.  And  so 
CD  to  the  end  of  the  chapter. 

Such,  Reverend  sir,  is  the  way  in  which  some 
things  strike  me,  bearing  on  the  question  whether 
yours  is,  or  is  not,  a  church  of  Christ.  That  there 
are  m.any  papists  truly  pious,  I  believe.  But 
whether  a  church  fashioned  as  is  yours,  as  to  its  ex- 
ternal organization,  after  the  Roman  state  when  gov- 
erned by  military  despots — departing,  in  its  public 
worship,  in  every  essential  particular,  from  that 
taught  in  the  Scriptures ;  whether  a  church  which 
corrupts  and  suppresses  the  Bible — which  corrupts 
its  sacraments  and  its  doctrines,  is  a  church  of 
Christ ;  this,  this,  is  the  grave  question  which  I  now 
submit  to  your  decision.  It  is  said  that  a  question 
involving  a  vast  amount  of  property  was  once  sub- 
'mitted  to  Sir  Matthew  Hale.  Before  giving  his 
opinion  he  was  approached  by  ihe  lordly  defendant 
in  the  case  with  a  bribe.  He  repulsed  him  with 
great  indignation.  His  lordship  complained  of  him 
to  the  king ;  and  the  reply  of  his  majesty  was : 
"  Sir  Matthew  makes  his  decisions  without  fear  or 
favour ;  he  would  treat  me  in  the  same  way." 

All  I  ask  of  you  is  to  decide  the  above  question 
with  the  honesty  of  Sir  Matthew. 

With  great  respect,  yours, 

KiRWAN. 


68  kirwan's  letters 


LETTER  XL 

The  effects  of  Popery  on  Liberty,  Knowledge,  Happiness,  True  religiOD. 

My  dear  Sir, — In  my  last  letter,  I  submitted  to 
your  decision  the  question,  whether  or  not  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  is  a  church  of  Christ,  after  briefly 
stating  to  you  how  some  things  bearing  on  its  truth- 
ful decision  strike  me.  I  design  the  present  lettei 
to  have  no  very  remote  bearing  upon  the  same  ques- 
tion ;  and  would  ask  you  to  give  it  the  degree  of 
consideration  to  which,  in  candour,  you  may  deem 
its  statements  entitled. 

In  reading  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament, 
I  find  that  they  all  speak  with  the  most  glowing  an- 
ticipations of  the  yet  future  Kingdom  ot  Messiah. 
That  kingdom  was  to  produce  the  civil,  moral,  and 
spiritual  renovation  of  the  world.  When  I  turn 
over  to  the  New  Testament,  I  find  that  on  the  birth 
of  Messiah,  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  stated  to  the 
shepherds  that  he  came  to  bring  them  good  tidings 
of  great  joy  which  should  be  to  all  people.  And 
having  announced  the  birth  of  the  Saviour  in  the 
city  of  David,  he  was  suddenly  joined  by  a  multi- 
tude  of  angels,  singing,  "  Glory  to  God  in  the  high- 
est, and  on  earth  peace,  good  will  toward  men." 
The  Old  Testament  and  the  New, — patriarchs, 
prophets,  and  apostles,  all  unite  in  teaching  us  that 
ihe  effect  of  Christianity  upon  our  world  would  be 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES.  89 

to  restore  it  to  its  primeval  state,  and  to  re-instamp 
upon  the  heart  of  man  the  lost  image  of  his  Creator. 
Ndw,  how  far  has  Popery  fulfilled  these  predictions, 
and  the  reasonable  expectations  of  the  faithful, 
founded  on  them  ?  In  other  words,  what  are  the 
fruits  of  Popery  1  Our  Saviour  tells  us  that  a  good 
tree  yields  good  fruit, — a  bad  tree,  bad  fruit.  And 
with  this  test  in  view,  my  object  in  the  present  letter 
is  to  state  to  you  how  some  things  strike  me. 

What  has  been  the  effect  of  Popery  upon  human 
liberty  ?  Permit  me  to  use  the  word  "  liberty '"  in 
its  widest  sense.  As  to  civil  liberty,  it  has  been  its 
unchanging  enemy.  It  has  never  permitted  a  spark 
of  liberty  to  glow  for  an  hour  when  it  could  ex- 
tinguish it.  There  is  not  in  Europe,  at  the  present 
hour, — perhaps  not  on  earth, — a  greater  civil  despot 
than  the  Pope.  The  man  that,  in  Italy,  writes  a 
page,  or  makes  a  speech  in  favour  of  liberty,  must 
fly  the  kingdom,  or  be  dragged  to  a  dungeon.  And 
we  are  to  judge  of  Popery,  not  by  its  pliability 
where  it  cannot  rule,  but  by  the  way  which  it  shows 
its  heart  where  it  can  do  so  without  let  or  hinderance. 
Kings  as  well  as  people  have  groaned  under  its 
tyranny.  Heniy  IV.  of  Germany  was  made  by  the 
Pope  to  stand  three  days  in  the  open  air,  with  bare 
head  and  feet.  Frederic  I.  was  made  to  hold  his 
stirrup.  He  caused  Heniy  II.  of  England  to  be 
scourged  on  the  tomb  of  Thomas  a-Becket.  And 
the  present  state  of  Spain,  Austria,  Italy,  show  the 
effects  of  Popery  on  civil  liberty. 

8* 


90 

It  is  equally  the  foe  of  mental  liberty.  The  Bible 
is  without  any  authority,  save  what  your  church 
gives  it.  And  the  Bible  must  teach  nothing  save 
what  your  church  allows.  And  man  must  believe 
nothing  save  what  the  priest  permits.  And  philoso- 
phy must  teach  nolhing  save  what  the  church  sane- 
tions.  You  know  that  for  this  last  offence  Galileo 
w^as  sent  to  study  astronomy  in  prison.  Pure  popery 
and  real  liberty,  never  have  breathed,  and  never  can, 
the  same  atmosphere.  The  principle  of  your  church 
is  to  allow  nothing  that  bows  not  to  its  yoke. 

What  has  been  the  effect  of  popery  upon  human 
knowledge  ?  When  Christianity  like  a  new  sun  rose 
upon  the  world,  there  was  much  that  might  be  called 
education  in  the  Roman  Empire.  The  obvious 
effect  of  Christianity  was  to  extend  it.  After  the 
lapse  of  some  ages,  popery  by  gradual  stages  crept, 
serpent-like,  to  the  high  places  of  power.  How 
soon  afterwards  the  lights  of  learning  go  out ;  how 
soon  the  dark  ages  commence,  and  roll  on  as  if  they 
were  never  to  end  !  And  those  centuries  of  dark- 
ness form  the  golden  age  of  your  church.  And 
what  spirit  did  it  manifest  on  the  revival  of  learning 
in  England  after  the  sacking  of  Constantinople,  and 
at  the  Reformation  ?  Leo  X.  prohibited  every  book 
translated  from  the  Greek  and  Hebrew.  This  blow 
was  aimed  at  the  Bible.  He  forbade  the  readins^  of 
every  book  published  by  the  Reformers.  He  excom- 
municated all  who  read  an  heretical  work.  The 
Liquisitors  prohibited  every  book  published  by  sixty- 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  91 

two  different  printers ;  and  all  books  printed  by  any 
printer  who  had  ever  published  a  book  of  heresy ! 
Nor  has  one  of  these  prohibitions  been  ever  recalled. 
At  this  hour,  the  noblest  products  of  human  genius 
are  under  the  ban  of  your  church ;  and  the  Index 
Expurgatorius  is  in  full  operation  at  Rome  ! 

And  what  has  been  the  effect  of  all  this  upon 
human  knowledge  ?  Look  into  the  countries,  for 
an  answer,  where  your  church  rules  undisturbed. 
The  nobles  and  the  people,  in  Spain,  Portugal, 
Austria,  Sardinia,  Sicily,  are  sunk  into  almost  the 
same  state  of  ignorance.  Upon  the  intellectual  de- 
gradation of  Catholic  Ireland  I  have  already  dwelt. 
The  Book  of  books  which  the  Lamb  died  to  unseal, 
your  church  has  re-sealed, ;  it  has  laid  an  embargo 
upon  human  knowledge  ;  it  allows  the  people  to 
read  only  what  it  permits ;  and  it  permits  only  what 
tends  to  rivet  its  chains,  and  to  perpetuate  the  dark- 
ness which  is  its  natural  element.  When  the  Re- 
formation occurred,  the  retrograde  movement  of  the 
World  towards  ignorance,  and  barbarism,  and  idola- 
try, had  ahnost  been  completed.  Had  it  not  occur- 
red, a  radiance  might  continue  to  gild  the  high 
placed  of  the  earth  after  the  gospel  sun  had  set — a 
twilight  might  be  protracted  for  a  few  ages,  in  which 
a  few  might  grope  their  way  t  >  heaven — but  each 
age  would  have  come  wrapped  in  a  deeper,  and  yet 
deeper  gloom,  until  impenetrable  darkness  had  fallen 
on  the  world.  Even  the  degree  of  knowledge  which 
has  obtained  in  the  papal  world,  it  owes  to  the  Re- 
formation. 


92  kirwan's  letters 

And  what  has  been  the  effect  of  popery  upon  the 
liaiypiness  of  our  race  ?  This  is  a  question  of  wide 
bearing,  yet  I  can  do  little  more  than  glance  at  it. 
Has  it  ever  laid  out  its  energies  for  the  promotion  of 
human  happiness  ?  If  so,  when  and  where  ?  Has 
it  not,  on  the  other  hand,  set  itself  in  opposition  to 
every  thing  calculated  to  promote  it  ?  Does  general 
intelligence  promote  it  ? — Your  church  has  always 
opposed  it.  Does  the  free  circulation  of  the  Word 
of  God  promote  it  ? — You  have  opposed  this,  also. 
Does  the  inculcation  of  pure  religion  promote  it  ? — 
You  have  poisoned,  or  closed  up  all  its  fountains. 
Does  advancing  civilization  promote  it? — Your  ef- 
forts are  untirinsr  to  reverse  its  wheels  and  to  roll  us 
back  to  the  darkness  of  the  dark  ages,  whose  very 
light  was  darkness.  But  what  can  I  say  more  ?  for 
the  time  would  fail  me  to  tell  of  your  monasteries 
and  nunneries — of  the  wars  which  popery  has  ex- 
cited— of  its  crusades — of  the  bitter  jealousies  it  has 
sown  between  states — of  the  oceans  of  blood  it  has 
shed  to  obtain  its  objects—of  the  Inquisitions  it  has 
erected  to  torture  the  unbelieving — and  of  the  way 
and  manner  in  which  it  has  caused  those  of  whom 
the  world  was  not  worthy,  to  have  trial  of 'cruel 
mockings  and  scourgings ;  yea,  moreover  of  bonds 
and  imprisonment :  how  it  caused  them  to  be  stoned, 
to  be  sawn  asunder,  to  be  slain  with  the  sword ;  to 
wander  about  in  deserts  and  in  mountains,"  in  dens 
and  caves  of  the  earth.  O !  Sir,  the  pathway  of 
popery  through  the  world  is  marked  by  the  blood 
and  bones  of  its  victims.     It  has  gone  into  the  earth 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  93 

feeling  that  Joshua's  commission  on  entering  Canaan 
was  in  its  pocket ;  and  that  all  who  questioned  its 
authority  were  Hittites  and  Amorites*.  And  almost 
without  a  figure  of  speech  it  can  be  said,  that  the 
nations  which  it  found  as  the  garden  of  the  Lord,  it 
converted  into  a  howling  wilderness.  I  know  not 
that  human  happiness  has  ever  had  a  more  deter- 
mined foe  than  popery. 

What  is  the  influence  of  popery  as  to  the  exercise 
of  Christian  charity  ?  By  charity  I  mean  not  alms- 
giving, nor  yet  the  love  of  God  which  the  Spirit  in- 
spires in  the  soul,  but  that  grace  which  induces  love 
to  those  who  differ  from  us,  and  to  cast  a  mantle  over 
their  defects.  The  Bible  teaches  us  to  do  good  to 
all  as  we  find  opportunity — to  love  our  enemies — to 
treat  with  kindness  those  who  despitefuily  persecute 
us.  How  does  your  church  obey  these  injunctions 
of  Christ  the  Lord  ?  Let  your  inquisitions — your 
auto  da  fe's — your  Bartholomew's  day — your  Irish 
massacre — your  yearly  anathemas  against  heretics 
— your  consigning  to  perdition  all  beyond  the  pale 
of  your  church,  answer.  All  non-papists  you  place 
beyond  the  pale  of  mercy — you  refuse  their  bodies 
Christian  burial,  if  such  your  burial  can  be  called 
— you  convert  into  the  bitterest  enemies  of  the  man 
that  becomes  a  Bible  Christian,  those  of  his  own 
household — you  make  the  poor  Irish  servant  to  fee) 
that  his  master,  and  her  mistress  are  the  enemies  of 
God,  however  pious,  whose  reading  of  tne  Bible, 
and  whose  prayers  to  heaven  cannot  be  heard  with- 


94  KIR  WAN's    LETTERS 

out  committing  great  sin — you  enact  a  ccremonia. 
law,  and  proclaim  that  all  who  submit  not  to  it  are 
speckled  with  plague  spots.  And,  hence,  your 
priests,  wherever  located  in  Protestant  communities, 
instead  of  going  about,  as  men,  to  piomote  the  gen- 
eral welfare,  move  about  as  spectres,  as  if  afraid  of 
the  light  of  day ;  here  abstracting  a  child  from  a 
Sunday  school ;  there  burning  a  Bible ;  here  poi- 
soning the  mind  of  a  servant  against  his  master,  and 
there  that  of  a  maid  against  her  mistress ; — and 
seeking  to  place  all  save  his  own  unlettered  fol- 
lowers, like  the  lepers  of  Samaria,  without  the  city 
of  God.     Does  this  look  like  the  spirit  of  Christ  ? 

What  is  the  influence  of  popery  on  true  religion  ? 
To  this  point  I  have  already  spoken.  I  have  told 
you,  sir,  how  it  has  corrupted  our  Rule  of  Faith, 
and  the  sacraments,  and  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible. 
This  is  but  the  theory  of  the  matter ; — O,  how  can 
I  speak  of  its  practical  effects  ?  The  religion  of 
Christ  it  has  converted  into  a  system  of  idolatry  in 
which  God  and  witches — the  Bible,  and  traditions, 
canons,  decretals — the  worship  of  God  and  of  saints 
— the  mediation  of  Christ  and  of  Mary — prayer  and 
scourging — pious  deeds,  penances  and  processions, 
are  all  of  like  authority,  and  like  efficacy ! 

The  mind  of  the  poor  papist  it  fills,  not  with  light 
and  love,  but  Avith  darkness  and  fear.  It  closes  to 
him  the  way  to  heaven  through  the  blood  of  Christ, 
and  opens  it  through  the  fires  of  purgatory.  Leav- 
ing him  in  doubt  as  to  where  he  will  succeed  best, 


TO    BISHOP    HTJGHES.  95 

he  ROW  prays  for  pardon  to  God — now  to  the  Virgin 
now  to  Peter  or  Paul — now  before  some  old  picture 
almost  obliterated  by  age — believing  alike  the  truths 
of  scripture,  and  the  absurdities  of  your  system,  and 
knowing  little  of  either. 

It  impresses  the  poor  papist  with  the  idea  that  re- 
ligion consists,  not  in  love  to  God  and  man,  but  in 
external  submission  to  rites  and  forms.  Hence, 
the  Spaniard  will  go  to  confession  with  his  dagger 
under  his  mantle — and  the  poor,  generous  Irishman, 
will  go  from  the  Mass  and  Missal  to  the  pot-house. 
And  your  inquisitors  have  gone  out  from  your  eu- 
charist  to  kindle  the  fires  which  consumed  your 
heretics  and  our  martyrs,  and  which  illumined  their 
pathway  to  glory ! 

But  I  must  stop,  lest  my  emotions  swell  beyond 
due  bounds. 

These,  Rev.  sir,  are  some,  and  but  some  of  the 
fruits  of  your  system.  How  do  they  appear  to  yon 
when  thus  brought  together  ?  Is  the  tree  which 
bears  these  fruits  good,  or  bad  ?  Has  popery,  in 
any  one  particular,  in  any  one  country,  or  in  any 
age,  ever  produced  the  results  which  prophets  and 
apostles  have  told  us  the  religion  of  Messiah  would 
produce  %  If  not,  are  not  popery  and  Christianity, 
not  only  iifierent,  but  antagonist  systems  ? 
With  great  respect,  yours, 

KiRWAN. 


96  kirwan's  letters 


LETTER  XII. 

Conclusion  of  the  whole  matter. 

Mr  DEAR  Sir, — The  letters  which  I  have  liad 
the  honour  of  addressing  to  you,  I  must  now  bring 
to  a  close.  I  have  stated  to  you,  with  all  frankness 
and  sincerity,  my  reasons  for  leaving  the  church  in 
which  I  was  born,  baptized,  and  confirmed ;  and 
which,  on  the  most  mature  deliberation,  yet  prevent 
me  from  returning  to  it.  I  can  assure  you,  on  the 
word  of  an  Irishman,  and  which  is  far  more,  on  the 
word  of  a  Christian,  that  I  have  had  no  end  in  view 
but  the  exposure  of  error,  and  the  development  of 
the  truth.  Thirty  years  have  almost  run  their 
course  since  I  left  your  church  ;  and  although  not 
utterly  unknown  to  the  men  of  our  age,  nor  unsoli- 
cited, these  letters  form  my  first  appearance  on 
popery.  Unless  some  unexpected  ripple  is  excited 
on  the  current  of  my  feelings,  they  will,  probably, 
form  my  last. 

Now,  dear  sir,  what  think  you  of  these  reasons  ? 
Are  they,  or  are  they  not,  sufficient  to  excuse,  to 
forbid  my  return  to  your  church  ?  Had  I  an  eai 
sufficiently  acute  to  hear  the  decision  of  your  con- 
science, I  believe  in  my  soul  that  it  pronounces  them 
sufficient.  Yes,  I  believe,  that  were  it  not  for  your 
sad  doctrine  of  Infallibility,  which  stereotypes  and 
Derpetuates  every  absurdity,  you  and  multitudes  like 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES.  97 

you,  men  of  sense  and  education,  would  rise  and 
cast  a  fire-brand  amid  the  rubbish  which  ignorance 
and  wickedness  have,  in  the  progress  of  ages,  col- 
lected around  your  church,  and  send  its  smoke 
heavenward  li^e  the  smoke  of  a  furnace.  But,  Sir, 
I  am  not  ignorant  of  the  slow  progress  of  truth 
against  bigotry — of  the  great  difficulty  of  exchang- 
ing bad  opinions  and  customs,  hallowed  by  usage, 
for  better  ones.  Nor  have  I  read  history  so  inatten- 
tively as  not  to  learn  from  it  the  great  difficulty  of 
converting  high  ecclesiastics  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth.  The  mitre  has  shielded  many  a  head  from 
the  weapons  of  sense  and  logic  ;  and  under  the  sur- 
plice many  a  conscience  has  gone  to  rest  thai,  with- 
out it,  would  have  contended  to  the  death  for  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints.  I  must  not  forget 
that  it  was  the  high  priest  who  occupied  Moses'  seat 
that  put  our  Lord  to  death  ;  nor  can  I  forget  that 
those  claiming  to  be  the  successors  of  Peter,  and  the 
vicegerents  of  Christ,  have  been  the  greatest  perse- 
cutors of  the  saints.  They  have  shed  Christian 
blood  enough  for  pope  and  cardinals  to  swim  in. 
Would  to  God  that  you  could  see  things  as  I  see  them ; 
your  influence  would  be  strong  in  freeing  our  fellow- 
countrymen  from  that  bondage  of  the  soul  which 
^  most  degrades  them.  But  despairing  of  this,  I  turn 
from  you  to  the  victims  of  your  system.  Roman 
Catholics,  and  especially  Irish  Roman  Catholics, 
to  you  I  now  turn.  From  your  bishop,  whom, 
with  you,  I   respect  as  a  man,   though  I  oppose 


98 

his  religious  principles,  I  appeal  to  you.  With 
you  is  the  power  to  bring  to  a  perpetual  end  that 
system  of  ghostly  tyranny  the  most  oppressive  that 
man  has  ever  felt.  Subjects  and  sceptres  depart 
together  ;  the  farce  of  the  Mass  will  soon  end  when 
there  are  none  to  witness  it, — and  popes,  bishops, 
and  priests  will  soon  seek  an  honest  calling  when 
there  are  none  to  be  edified  by  their  jugglery, — 
when  "the  alms  and  the  suffrages  of  the  faithful" 
cease  to  flow. 

Will  you  give  an  honest  perusal  to  these  letters  : 
and  candidly  weigh  the  reasons  and  the  arguments 
which  they  contain  ?  That  I  was  born  in  Ireland, 
is  my  pride.  My  sympathies  are  all  with  Ireland 
in  its  civil,  social,  and  moral  degradation.  The 
blood  of  my  kindred,  shed  to  defend  it  against 
English  oppression,  mingles  with  its  soil.  Your  pre 
sent  feelings  as  to  your  church,  I  have  had,  and  in 
all  their  force.  I  can  entirely  appreciate  them.  1 
have  cordially  hated  Protestantism  and  Protestants ; 
and  I  have  seen  the  time  when  I  regarded  the  man 
as  my  personal  enemy  who  would  utter  a  word 
against  my  religion.  But  those  were  the  days  of 
my  youth,  and  of  my  ignorance.  When  I  became 
a  man,  I  put  away  childish  things.  And  my  reasons 
for  so  doing  are  spread  out  before  you  in  these  letters; 
and  all  I  ask  of  you  is,  kindly  and  candidly  to  con- 
sider them,  and  then  to  act  accordingly.  If  they 
are  not  sufficiently  cogent  to  cause  you,  as  they  have 
caused  me,  tr  leave  the  Church  of  Rome,  then  you 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  99 

will  have  my  entire  consent  to  be  oppressed,  fleeced, 
and  ridden  by  your  priests,  as  long  as  you  live. 

Yet  permit  me  to  entreat  you  to  give  to  the  sub- 
ject of  these  letters  the  attention  which  it  demands. 
I  know  that  many  of  you  are  sincere  ;  but  this  is  no 
test  of  truth.  I  know  many  of  you  to  be  devout ; 
but  so  are  Mahometans  and  pagans.  I  know  that 
many  of  you  are  prepared  to  make  any  sacrifice 
which  religion  demands.  But  we  may  give  all  our 
goods  to  feed  the  poor,  and  our  bodies  to  be  burned, 
and  yet  be  strangers  to  the  only  true  religion.  My 
heart  is  deeply  affected  in  view  of  your  state.  A 
noble  people,  you  are  shut  out  from  the  joys  to  which 
God  invites  you.  You  are  hoodwinked  and  manacled 
by  a  system  of  the  grossest  fraud  and  delusion ; 
you  are  denied  the  common  birthright  of  a  citizen 
of  the  world — seeing  with  your  own  eyes  and  hear- 
ing with  your  own  ears.  You  are  robbed  of  the 
only  volume  that  can  guide  you — and  are  forbidden 
to  enter  the  way  of  life,  save  through  the  gate  which 
is  guarded  by  your  priests.  O  !  suffer  the  entreaties 
of  one  who  suffered  as  you  now  do  under  the  galling 
chains  of  papal  tyranny.  Break  the  fetters  which 
priests  have  forged,  and  in  which  they  have  bound 
you.  You  are  now  in  a  land  where  you  may  laugh 
at  the  excommunications  and  anathemas  of  popes, 
prelates,  and  priests.  God  has  given  you  his  word  ; 
let  no  man  filch  it  from  you.  God  has  given  you  a 
mind,  to  think  for  yourselves ;  let  no  man  usurp  the 


100  kirwan's  letters 

power  of  thinking  for  you.  God  invites  you  to  him- 
self, to  receive  at  his  own  hand  pardon  and  forgive- 
ness. O !  submit  not  to  go  and  pay  for  these,  and 
on  your  knees,  to  a  priest.  Go  to  the  Bible  for  your 
religion.  Receive  nothing  as  religious  truth,  which 
is  not  there  taught ;  and  your  mental,  social,  and 
moral  regeneration  is  commenced. 

But  you  meet  this  appeal  with  the  objection,  that 
I  am  a  deserter  from  your  church ;  and  that  I  am 
not,  therefore,  to  be  heard.  If  your  priests  take  any 
notice  at  all  of  these  letters,  I  know  well  the 
changes  they  will  ring  upon  this  idea.  But  was  not 
Peter  a  deserter  from  the  Jewish  church  ;  and  must 
he  not  be  heard  on  that  account  ?  Must  a  man  who 
renounces  error  never  be  heard  by  those  who  con- 
tinue in  it  ?  And  what  think  you  of  the  persecution 
by  your  church  of  those  who  renounce  its  authority  ? 
To  say  the  least  of  it,  it  is  in  bad  company.  The 
Jews  put  Christ  to  death  for  deserting  the  faith  of 
Moses.  The  Mahometans  put  to  death  any  man  of 
their  number  who  rejects  the  Koran  for  Christ.  The 
Hindoos  expel  from  their  society  all  who  reject  their 
religion  for  ours.  And  popery  has  shed,  in  rivers, 
the  blood  of  those  who  could  not  but  reject  its  follies 
and  absurdities.  In  this  happy  land,  the  bull  of  a 
pope  is  as  harmless  as  a  lamb— and  the  thunders 
of  the  Vatican  have  no  lightning  that  injures. 
Priests  may  prejudice  you  against  these  letters,  but 
they   are   the   interested   party, — their   craft  is  in 


TO  BISHOP   HUGHES.  101 

danger.  And  all  I  ask  of  you  is,  to  give  my  rea- 
sons the  candid  consideration  which  you  owe  to 
yourself,  and  which  their  importance  requires. 

But  you  may  ask,  What !  do  you  wish  me  to  give 
up  my  religion  ?  Is  not  mine  the  oldest  religion  1 
Here,  I  well  know,  is  the  invincible  argument  with 
many  of  you ;  but  has  it  any  weight  ?  Are  the 
oldest  things  always  the  best  ?  If  so,  then  the  Jews 
were  right  in  resisting  Christianity  ;  and  the  pagans 
are  right  in  clinging  to  their  false  systems — and  you 
do  wrong  in  ever  exchanging  an  old  garment  or  an 
old  house  for  a  new  one.  But  is  popery  the  oldest 
religion  ?  O,  no ;  Christianity  is  older.  Popery 
and  Mahometanism  arose  at  the  same  time,  and  cen- 
turies after  the  establishment  of  Christianity.  They 
are  alike  corruptions  of  the  religion  of  Jesus,  though 
the  prophet  has  apostatized  farther  than  the  pope. 
They  both  appeal  to  the  senses,  and  are  both  idola- 
trous. If  the  pope  has  his  holy  water,  the  prophet 
has  his  holy  well.  If  the  one  has  his  holy  bones,  and 
coats,  and  relics,  the  other  has  his  holy  pieces  of 
tapestry  from  the  temple  of  Mecca.  They  have 
alike  their  pilgrimages — their  senseless  repetition  of 
prayers — their  Lents — their  penances,  and  their  ex- 
ternal symbols  which  alike  adorn  the  church  and 
the  mosque.  And  if  the  papist  can  object  to  Chris- 
tianity, saying,  Is  not  mine  the  oldest  religion  ?  then 
can  the  Mahometan  do  the  same. 

But  yours  is  not  the  oldest  religion.     I  could  here 

give  you  the  time^  did  the  limits  of  a  letter  permit, 

9* 


102  KIR  WAN's    LETTERS 

wlien  the  distinguishing  doctrines  of  your  church 
were  introduced.  The  celibacy  of  the  clergy  came 
into  the  church  in  the  Fourth  Century ;  purgatory 
appeared  in  the  Seventh,  and  was  affirmed  in  the 
Twelfth ;  auricular  confessions,  and  the  worship  of 
the  Host,  in  the  Thirteenth ;  and  so  on  to  the  end  of 
the  chapter.  And  instead  of  wishing  you  to  give 
up  the  oldest  religion,  we  wish  you  only  to  give  up 
popery  for  Christianity  ; — to  give  up  the  new,  and 
to  return  to  the  old.  All  that  I  have  done  myself 
and  all  that  I  desire  you  to  do  is,  to  lay  aside  every 
thing  that  pope,  bishops,  and  priests  have  added  to 
the  religion  of  Jesus,  and  to  embrace  that  religion 
just  as  it  is  taught  in  the  Bible. 

Convinced  that  you  have  been  deceived  by  those 
to  whom  you  have  been  looking  for  guidance — that 
priests  have  sought  your  money  more  than  your  sal- 
vation— that  instead  of  bread  they  have  given  you 
stones,  and  for  eggs,  serpents — that  they  have  sought 
to  brutalize,  instead  of  enlightening  you — to  enslave 
instead  of  elevating  you  to  the  liberty  with  which 
Christ  makes  his  people  free  ;  do  any  of  you  inquire 
as  to  the  course  best  for  you  to  pursue  ?  If  you 
will  take  the  advice  of  one  that  has  gone  before  you 
in  the  way,  it  is  cheerfully  given.  Think  not  of 
giving  up  all  religion  because  of  the  deceptions  of 
popery.  This  was  one  of  my  mistakes.  Take  the 
Bible  for  your  guide ; — that  will  not  deceive  you. 
It  teaches  you  that  you  are  a  sinner ;  this  you  should 
believe  and  feel.     It  teaches  you  that  Christ  died  for 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  103 

sinners ;  and  that  his*  blood  cleanses  from  all  sin ; 
and  that  to  escape  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God  due 
to  you  for  sin,  the  great  and  the  only  prerequisites 
are  repentance  toward  God,  and  faith  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  Give  up  your  missal  for  the  Bible — 
confess  your  sins  not  to  your  priests  but  to  God — 
look  for  pardon  and  meetness  for  heaven,  not  to 
priestly  ablutions,  and  eating  wafers,  and  extreme 
unctions,  but  to  the  righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ, 
received  by  faith ;  and  in  spite  of  popes,  prelates, 
and  priests,  life,  eternal  life,  is  yours. 

Wishing  and  praying  for  you  all,  that  deliverance 
from  popish  thraldom  in  which  I  rejoice,  and  that 
gospel  hope  of  future  blessedness  which  is  my  stay 
and  comfort  in  this  vale  of  tears, 

I  am,  with  great  respect,  yours. 

KiRWAN. 


LETTERS 


TO   THE 


RT.  EEV.  JOHN  HUGHES, 


ROMAN  CATHOLIC  BISHOP  OF  NEW  YORK. 


BY 


SECOND    SERIES. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PRESBYTERIAN  BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION, 

NO.  26d  CHESTNUT  STREET. 


CONTENTS. 


bfTRODDCTlON  TO  THE  SECOND  SERIES, 5 

LETTER  I. 
Reasons  for  this  Second  Series — Why  addressed  to  Bishop  Hughes- 
Evil  days  have  come  upon  Popery,     .......      9 

LETTER  II. 

Extreme  Unction — Its  meaning — The  way  of  administering  it — James 
T,  14,  15.  —it  enriches  the  Cliurch — An  Incident,      .        ,        .        .16 

LETTER  III. 

Penance — Tlie  pretended  Sacrament  oescribed — No  Scripture  warrant 
fof  it — Its  absurdities — A  personal  inquiry         .        .        .        .        .34 

LETTER  IV. 

Miracles — Milner's  vindication — Many  examples — Legends  of  the  saints 
— A  miracle  of  my  own  working — Why  so  few  miracles  since  the 
Reformation, .34 

LETTER  V. 

Marks  of  the  Papal  being  the  true  Church  considered — Unity — Sanc- 
tity— Catholicity — Apostolicity — Infallibility, 43 

LETTER  VI. 

Relics — Relics  the  parent  of  miracles — The  importance  of  relics — Speci- 
mens of  relics — The  abuses  of  relics — Indulgences — To  whom  and 
by  w^hom  granted — Their  fearful  effects, 54 

LETTER  VII. 

Unmeaningness  of  Romish  Doctrines  and  Cereiwjnies : — Baptbm— 
The  Mass — Penance — Extreme  Unction— Holy  Watei — Prayers  to 
tiie  Saints — Withholding  the  Scriptures, M 


4  CONTENTS. 

LETTER  VIII. 
The  destiny  of  the  Papacy — Its  growth — Its  history  not  yet  writte»^ 
The  Reformation — Reasons  for  the  extinction  of  popery — 1.  Incapa- 
ble of  reformation — 2.  Its  reformation  impossible — 3.  Ojiposed  by  the 
intelligence  of  the  world — 4.  By  its  piety — 5.  The  causes  which 
gave  it  origin  passing  away — 6.  Its  extinction  ordained — 7.  How  it 
is  to  be  done, ....  74 

LETTER  IX. 
To  ail,  and  especially  to  American,  Roman  Catholics,  ...  85 

LETTER  X. 

Conclusion.  The  Indian  devotee— Faith  in  Christ  saves— The  dying 
thief— Peter  at  the  feast  of  Pentecost— The  plan  of  Salvation— The 
Gosoel  and  Papal  way  of  Salvation  contrasted — A  call  upon  Irish 
Roman  Catholics,       .        .  ...  ...    95 


INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  SECOND  SERIES. 


The  Letters  in  the  New-York  Observer  addressed  to 
Bishop  Hughes,  under  the  signature  of  "  Kirwan,"  pro- 
duced, as  might  have  been  expected,  an  extraordinary 
sensation.  They  were  read,  not  by  the  Bishop  only,  nor 
by  Protestants  only,  but  by  many  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  who  were  thus  led  to  see  the  absurdity 
of  much  which  they  had  been  taught  to  believe.  One 
edition  followed  another  in  rapid  succession :  they  were 
translated  into  the  German  language,  and  published  for  the 
thousands  flocking  to  our  shores  and  speaking  that  tongue  ; 
they  were  reprinted  in  England,  and  circulated  among  the 
Roman  Catholics  there  and  in  Ireland,  with  what  effect  Ave 
have  yet  to  learn. 

But  the  Author,  in  assigning  to  Bishop  Hughes  the 
reasons  that  prevent  his  return  to  the  church  in  which  he 
wa>  bom,  baptized,  and  confirmed,  had  by  no  means  ex- 
hausted the  catalogue,  and  he  was  repeatedly  called  upon 
to  complete  the  work. 

Of  these  calls,  the  following  published  in  tlie  Observer 
is  a  fair  indication  of  the  estimate  in  which  the  forraei 


6  INTRODUCTION    TO    THE    SECOND    SERIES. 

eeries  was  held,  and  of  the  public  desire  that   Kinvan 
would  resume  his  pen. 

To  the  author  of  the,  letter  s  on  Romanism^  lately  addressed 

to  Bishop  Hughes  through  the  New  York  Observer,  over 

the  signature  of  Kinvan : 

Sir, — Though  you  have  chosen  hitherto  to  keep  in  the 
shade  in  reference  to  the  authorship  of  these  letters,  I  sup- 
pose you  are  not  buried  in  so  deep  obscurity  as  not  to  have 
some  knowledge  of  what  is  passing  in  the  world  around 
you.  But  lest  you  should  chance  to  be  less  knowing  than 
might  be  presumed,  I  beg  to  state  to  you  through  your 
own  channel  of  communication,  that  the  letters  to  which  1 
refer  have  been  read  by  the  religious  community  at  large, 
with  a  degree  of  interest  that  has  rarely  been  felt  in  refer- 
ence to  any  similar  publication.  If  I  mistake  not,  the 
judgment  of  the  world  is  that  they  are  characterized  by  a 
simplicity  and  perspicuity  that  bring  them  fairly  within  the 
scope  of  any  comprehension ;  by  a  force  of  thought  and 
expression  which  no  reflecting  and  impartial  mind  will  find 
it  easy  to  resist ;  by  an  amount  of  good  nature  and  Chris- 
tian charity  which  must  prevent  any  reasonable  opponent 
from  taking  oifence ;  and  last,  though  not  least,  by  an  un- 
wonted pungency,  which  is  likely,  ere  this,  to  have  vibrated 
in  a  note  of  terror  to  the  innermost  heart  of  Rome.  I 
believe,  in  common  with  a  multitude  of  wiser  and  better 
men,  that  these  letters  have,  as  yet,  only  begun  to  fulfil 
their  mission  ;  and  that  those  who  live  at  the  ends  of  the 
earth,  and  who  are  destined  to  live  in  coming  years,  will 
look  upon  them  as  having  had  much  to  do  in  lifting  from 
the  world  one  of  its  heaviest  curses. 

But  my  object  in  addressing  you  is  something  more  than 
to  inform  you  of  that  of  which,  I  dare  say,  you  need  no 
information.  You  are  aware  that  it  is  only  a  portion  of 
the  ground  of  the  Romish  controversy  which  your  letters 
ha\'e  occupied.  There  are  many  points  of  equal  moment 
with  those  already  discussed,  which  you  have  left  un- 
touched. Allow  me  to  say,  yours  is  the  hand  to  sweep 
through  this  whole  domain  of  error.  It  would  be  an  oc- 
casion o*"  deep  regret  if  you  should  not  cany  forward  to 


INTRODUCTION    TO    THE    SECOND    SERIIIS.  7 

its  completion  a  work  which  you  have  so  happily  begun. 
The  Christian  public  expect,  may  I  not  say,  demand  it  of 
you.  The  multitude  who  are  yet  in  the  same  spiritual 
thraldom  from  which  you  have  escaped,  demand  it.  Your 
country,  whose  political  as  well  as  religious  interests 
are  threatened  with  deadly  invasion,  demands  it.  The 
cause  of  an  enlightened  Christianity,  of  a  sound  and  evan- 
gelical Protestantism,  demands  it.  There  is  a  requisition 
upon  you,  Kirwan,  which  I  am  sure  you  cannot  resist 
without  offending  against  the  mercy  that  hath  taken  your 
own  feet  out  of  the  miry  clay,  and  established  your  goings. 
May  the  Head  of  the  church  enable  you  suitably  to  appre- 
ciate your  obligations  and  responsibilities.  Keep  in  the 
dark  if  you  will :  only  lead  others  into  the  light  of  life 
and  into  the  hberty  wherewith  Christ  makes  his  disciples 
free.     Be  assured  that  in  making  these  suggestions,  I  am 

One  of  Many. 

Obedient  to  these  calls,  and  impelled  by  a  sense  of  duty 
to  his  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh,  his  countrymen  and 
brethren,  he  has  prepared  this  second  series,  in  the  same 
courteous  and  conciliatory  style  of  the  former :  breathing 
the  same  national  sympathy  with  Irishmen,  and  fall  of  the 
humor  that  betrays  the  author's  nativity,  while  it  secures 
the  attention  of  the  reader. 

Placed  in  the  hands  of  those  yet  in  the  faith  of  Bishop 
Hughes,  these  letters  will  be  read  without  prejudice,  and 
followed,  as  I  trust  they  will  be,  with  the  enlightening  and 
convincing  Spirit,  they  will  work  mightily  in  opening  the 
eyes  of  those  new  wandering  in  error,  and  leading  them 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth. 

SAMUEL   IREN^US   PRIME. 


LETTERS 

TO    THE 

RIGHT   REV.    JOHN   HUGHES, 

BISHOP  OF  NEW-YORK. 

Sccont)  Scries. 


LETTER  I. 

Refksons  for  this  Second  Series — Why  addressed  to  Bkhop  Hughes — Bvfl 
days  have  come  upon  Popery. 

My  dear  Sir, — When  I  closed  the  letters  I  had 
the  honour  of  addressing  to  you  during  the  last 
spring,  I  fondly  hoped  that  my  part  in  the  thicken- 
ing controversy  on  Romanism  in  our  country,  had 
closed  also.  As  those  letters  formed  my  first,  I  de- 
signed that  they  should  also  form  my  last  appearance 
before  the  public  on  that  topic.  So  I  expressed  my- 
self to  you  in  my  closing  letter.  But  the  unexpect- 
ed "  ripple  "  has  been  "  excited  on  the  current  of 
my  feelings,"  and  whether  wise  or  otherwise,  I  have 
concluded  again  to  address  you. 

My  reasons  for  so  doing,  and  thus  departing  from 
my  original  resolution,  are  briefly  these :  The  pub- 


10 

lie,  who  have  so  kindly  received,  and  so  widely  cir- 
culated my  "  Letters,"  have  called  for  another 
series,  embracing  the  reasons  which  I  have  omitted 
to  state ;  and  which,  together  with  those  stated,  for- 
bid my  return  to  your  church.  At  least  one  of  the 
papers  devoted  to  the  interests  of  Popery  in  this 
country,  calls  upon  me,  in  a  semi-serious  manner, 
to  give  my  views  on  certain  points  which  it  raises , 
individuals  of  your  communion,  who  have  given  my 
letters  a  candid  perusal,  have  asked  what  Kirwan 
had  to  say  upon  this  and  that  point  not  considered 
by  me ;  and  last,  though  not  least,  is  a  desire  to  put 
into  the  hands  of  every  inquiring  Roman  Catholic,  a 
complete  manual  of  my  objections  to  your  church, 
candidly  and  kindly  considered.  These,  Rev.  Sir, 
are  the  reasons  and  motives,  and  not  a  love  of  con- 
troversy for  its  own  sake,  which  induce  me  again  to 
address  you. 

While  yielding  to  these  reasons  and  motives,  I  yet 
confess  to  you  that  I  deem  the  present  series  of  let- 
ters, which  will  be  brief,  a  work  of  supererogation. 
If  you  have  never  performed  such  a  work,  you  knoAV 
what  it  means.  My  conviction  is,  that  the  reasons 
given  in  my  former  letters  for  refusing  to  return  to 
your  church,  are  sufficient ;  sufficient  to  induce  any 
sane  mind  to  withhold  its  faith  from  your  teachings, 
and  every  sane  man  to  abandon  your  church.  This, 
you  will  say,  is  a  partial  decision ;  it  may  be  so. 
But  as  a  tree  may  be  held  in  its  place  by  a  few 
weak  roots  after  the  main  ligaments  that  bound  it 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  11 

to  the  earth  are  cut,  and  when  the  weakest  wind 
that  blows  may  cause  it  to  totter ;  so  a  mind,  when 
the  power  of  an  ancient  superstition  over  it  is  broken, 
may  yet  retain  a  connexion  with  it,  influenced  by 
reasons  which  seem  unworthy  of  consideration.  I 
know  this  to  be  the  case.  The  belief  in  "  witches 
and  warls "  was  early  impressed  on  the  mind  of 
Hume  ;  and  it  is  said  of  him.  that,  after  "he  reasoned 
matter  and  mind  out  of  existence,  he  could  not  hear 
the  rustling  of  a  leaf,  after  dark,  without  starting  as 
if  a  witch  were  upon  him.  The  taste  and  smell  of 
a  sour  liquid  remain  long  in  the  emptied  cask. 
And  if  any  mind,  rejecting  the  great  outlines  of  your 
system,  is  yet  held  to  it  by  some  reasons  which  I 
have  not  considered,  and  whose  absurdity  I  may  be 
able  to  expose,  I  feel  anxious  to  relieve  it.  I  must 
not  withhold  from  you  my  deep  conviction  that  Po- 
pery is  an  evil  tree  ;  that  its  fruits  are  only  evil.  I 
believe  it  to  be  a  falling  tree.  Its  branches  are 
withering  in  the  air,  and  the  axe,  wielded  by  an 
Almighty  hand,  is  cutting  its  roots.  And  if  I  can 
assist  in  cutting  a  few  more  of  its  roots,  and  thus 
hastening  its  fall,  I  feel  that  I  will  be  conferring  a 
benefit  upon  our  race,  and  contributing  to  the  eman- 
cipation of  millions  of  men  from  a  slavery,  in  com- 
parison with  which  that  of  the  Pharoahs  was  freedom. 
Hence  these  additional  letters.  And  all  I  intend 
doing,  is  to  state  to  you  some  farther  reasons  which 
forbid  my  return  to  your  church. 

Before  entering  upon  a  statement  of  these  rea- 


IS  kirwan's  letters 

sons,  permit  me  to  say  a  few  things  which  I  can 
better  say  in  this  preliminary  letter  than  any  where 
else. 

The  question  has,  doubtless,  suggested  itself  to 
your  mind,  and  to  the  minds  of  others,  why  do  I  ad- 
dress these  letters  to  you  ?  Some  of  my  reasons  I 
have  already  given  you.  I  believe  you  to  be  a  man 
of  sense,  of  learning,  and  of  fair  character,  which 
cannot  be  said  of  all  papal  priests.  You  are  put 
forth,  now  that  Bishop  England,  also  one  of  our 
countrymen,  is  no  more,  as  the  Achilles  of  your 
party  in  these  United  States.  If  any  man  in  the 
country  can  refute  my  reasoning  and  obviate  my 
(Ejections,  you  can  do  it.  And  as  my  sole  object 
and  aim  is  the  truth,  I  have  selected  the  man,  in  my 
opinion,  best  fitted  to  correct  me  when  in  error ; 
when  false,  to  show  me  the  fallacy  of  my  reason- 
ing,— and  if  he  should  reply,  who  would  reply  as  a 
scholar  and  a  gentleman.  If  you  cannot  confute 
me,  no  man  of  your  church  in  these  United  States 
can.  Nor  will  I  consent  to  notice  what  may  be  said 
in  the  way  of  reply  to,  or  abuse  of  these  letters  by 
any  man,  save  yourself.  I  have,  as  they  say,  a 
drawing  towards  you  as  an  Irishman — I  respect 
your  open  and  manly  bearing,  and,  sadly  as,  in  my 
opinion,  you  prostitute  your  talents,  I  have  a  high 
respect  for  them.  Hence  I  pass  through  the  ranks 
of  soldiers,  and  by  inferior  officers,  and  go  up  to 
Achilles  himself. 

But  you  have  not  answered  my  former  letters  ) 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  13 

I  confess  to  you,  sir,  that  I  had  no  expectation  in 
writing  them,  that  you  would  answer  them,  and  for 
these  reasons :  First,  because  they  are  anonymous. 
And  as  I  like  not  myself  to  contend  with  a  masked 
opponent,  so  I  judged  of  you.  The  text  is  capable 
of  wide  application,  "  as  face  answereth  to  face  in 
water,  so  the  heart  of  man  to  man."  I  prefer,  for 
the  present,  to  stand  behind  the  curtain  ;  and  for 
this,  among  other  reasons,  that  you  and  all  men  may 
decide  upon  what  I  say,  simply  upon  the  merits  of 
my  statements  and  arguments ;  and  for  the  addi- 
tional reason,  to  prevent  a  personal  controversy.  It 
is  an  old  trick  of  your  church  to  leave  the  argu. 
ment  for  the  man.  And,  secondly,  because  of  their 
matter.  I  speak  to  you  of  what  my  eyes  have 
seen ;  of  what  my  ears  have  heard ;  of  what  my 
heart  has  felt.  Facts  are  stubborn  things.  How 
can  you  make  a  man  believe  that  to  be  sweet,  which 
from  actual  taste  he  knows  to  be  sour  ?  It  is  hard 
to  reason  against  a  man's  experience.  On  these 
grounds  I  expected  from  you  no  reply.  And  al- 
though, unless  I  mistake  you,  not  one  of  the  little 
men  who  seek  to  put  the  more  abundant  honour  on 
the  part  that  lacketh  by  a  mock  dignity,  by  an  as- 
sumed superiority,  yet  you  know  when  to  be  wisely 
silent.  If,  sir,  without  compromising  your  crosier, — 
if,  during  some  hours  of  leisure  from  your  varied 
and  manifold  duties,  you  would  consent  to  answer 
some  of  the  reasons  and  considerations  which  I  have 
stated,  and  will  state  in  the  following  letters,  which 

2 


14  kirwan's  letters 

forbid  my  return  to  your  church,  there  is  one,  at 
least,  that  will  read  your  reply  with  great  pleasure. 
I  am  not,  sir,  among  those  who  impute  your  silence 
to  your  inability  to  reply  to  my  statements ;  but  if  I 
can  only  gain  access  to  the  public  ear,  if  I  can 
only  obtain  from  candid  Roman  Catholics  a  careful 
consideration  of  what  I  say,  your  silence  will  give 
but  little  trouble.     My  object  will  be  attained. 

Permit  me  to  make  one  other  remark  before  clos- 
ing  this  letter.  Evil  days  have  come  upon  the  sys. 
tern  of  which  you  are  so  able  an  advocate.  Once 
you  could  silence  inquiry  by  church  authority ;  but, 
in  this  country  especially,  that  day  has  passed 
away.  It  is  passing  away  even  under  the  shadow 
of  the  dome  of  St.  Peter's.  There  are  those,  yet,  in 
this  country  and  in  the  old  countries  of  Europe,  who, 
like  that  useless  bird  of  sable  wing,  called  the  jack- 
daw, which  you  and  I  have  seen  in  our  youth,  love 
the  narrow  window,  and  the  toppling  tower,  and  the 
mantling  ivy,  who  hover  about  whatever  is  ancient, 
however  worthless  or  truthless ;  but  their  number  is 
small,  and  is  daily  diminishing.  The  great  inquiry 
now  is  after  the  true,  the  scriptural,  the  reasonable. 
The  day  for  the  trial  of  all  things  has  come.  Mere 
authority  in  philosophy,  in  morals,  in  religion,  is 
valueless.  When  man  appeals  from  the  Cnurch  to 
the  Scriptures,  it  is  of  no  avail  to  say  to  him,  "  be- 
lieve the  Church."  No  appeal  is  admitted  from  the 
Scriptures  to  the  Fathers — from  the  teachings  of 
Paul  to  the  decisions  of  Councils.     Old  things,  if 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  15 

absurd,  are  passing  away ;  and  their  wrinkles  only 
hasten  their  burial.  Nor  is  there  in  the  physical  or 
moral  sciences,  nor  in  the  science  of  government, 
nor  in  the  theory  of  religion,  a  single  principle  that 
is  not  tried  and  sifted  as  if  never  tried  before.  At 
this  treatment,  hoary  error  may  lift  up  its  hands  in 
holy  horror,  and  fall  back  aghast  as  did  Saul  be- 
fore the  ghost  of  Samuel ;  but  it  cannot  be  helped. 
There  may  be,  and  doubtless  is,  a  reckless  specula- 
tion— a  profane  tampering  with  sacred  things ;  but 
nothing  will  eventually  suffer  but  the  truthless.  And 
what  will  become  of  Popery  when  proof  and  Scrip- 
ture supplant  authority  and  credulity  ? 

It  becomes  you,  then,  sir,  to  buckle  on  the  bar- 
ness.  The  battle  has  but  begun  between  truth  and 
error.  In  your  soul  and  in  mine  there  should  not 
be  a  desire  but  for  the  triumph  of  the  truth.  Let 
any  opinion  that  I  hold  be  proved  unscriptural  and 
unreasonable,  and  I  will  cheerfully  give  it  to  the 
hottest  furnace  you  can  heat  to  consume  it.  Let 
the  truth  of  God  triumph,  whatever  human  systems 
perish.     Will  you  join  me  in  this  aspiration  ? 

In  my  next  I  shall  proceed  with  my  statement  of 
some  of  the  additional  reasons  which  prevent  me 
from  returning  to  your  church. 

With  great  respect,  yours, 

KiRWAN, 


16  kirwan's  letters 


LETTER  IL 

Extreme  Unction — Its  meaning — The  way  of  administering  it — James  T. 
14,  15.  —It  enriches  the  Church — An  Incident. 

My  dear  Sir, — Agreeably  to  the  promise  made 
to  you  in  closing  my  last  letter,  I  now  proceed  to  a 
statement  of  the  additional  reasons  which  yet  pre- 
vent my  return  to  the  pale  of  your  church,  in  which 
I  was  born,  baptized,  and  confirmed.  I  shall  begin 
with  your  sacrament  of  Extreme  Unction.  As  but 
few  of  your  own  people,  and  yet  fewer  Protestants, 
understand  it,  I  hope  you  and  my  readers  will  bear 
with  me  even  if  1  should  occupy  this  letter  with  its 
consideration.  When  rightly  understood,  it  is  a  ter- 
rible sacrament.  I  will  strive  so  to  explain  it  as  to 
bring  it  to  the  level  of  every  mind,  and  from  your 
own  standard  authors  which  lie  before  me. 

The  name  of  the  sacrament  explains  it ;  it  is 
anointing  by  holy  oil  of  a  sick  person  when  recovery 
is  extremely  doubtful.  This,  and  the  fact  that  it  is 
supposed  to  be  the  last  act  of  religion,  give  it  its 
name.  The  object  of  this  anointing  is  thus  explain- 
ed by  the  doctors  of  Trent :  "  The  devil  is  always 
busy  in  seeking  to  destroy  the  souls  of  men  ;  yet  it 
is  at  the  hour  of  death  that  he  most  vehemently  ex- 
erts all  his  power ;  and  the  object  of  this  anointing 
by  holy  oil  is  to  fortify  the  soul  in  the  dying  hour 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  it 

against  the  violent  attacks  of  its  spiritual  enemies, 
and  to  enable  it  to  make  a  holy  death,  and  to  secure 
a  happy  eternity." 

The  only  person  who  can  administer  this  sacra- 
ment is  a  bishop  or  priest.  You  admit  a  midwife, 
or  a  layman,  to  baptize ;  but  a  priest  only  can  ad- 
minister Extreme  Unction.  The  reasons  for  this 
will  appear  in  the  sequel. 

The  oil  used  in  this  sacrament  must  not  be  com- 
mon oil.  That  the  effects  intended  may  be  pro- 
duced, it  must  be  oil  of  olives,  "  solemnly  blessed  by 
the  bishop  every  year  on  Maunday-Thursday."  I 
quote  from  Challoner ;  the  sentence  leaves  it  doubt- 
ful whether  the  efficacy  of  the  bishop's  blessing  con- 
tinues only  a  year,  or  whether  the  oil  used  must  be 
blessed  on  that  day.  It  has  what  is  called  in  rheto- 
ric, a  squinting  construction.  As  the  bishop  is  paid 
for  blessing  it,  it  is  probable  he  blesses  but  little  at 
once,  and  that  he  gives  it  efficacy  but  for  a  limited 
time. 

The  effects  and  fruits  of  this  anointing  are  these : 
it  remits  sins,  at  least  such  as  are  venial :  it  heals 
the  soul  of  its  infirmity  and  weakness  ;  and  helps  to 
remove  the  debt  of  punishment  due  to  past  sins ;  it 
strengthens  the  soul  to  bear  the  illness  of  the  body, 
and  to  repel  its  spiritual  enemies  ;  and  "  if  it  he  ex- 
pedient  for  the  good  of  the  soul,  it  often  restores  the 
health  of  the  hody.'^  I  wish  you,  Sir,  and  my  read- 
ers, to  ponder  the  sentence  in  italics.  Its  meaning 
is  this :  if  the  person  is  restored,  it  is  a  miracle 

2* 


18  kirwan's  letters 

wrought  by  extreme  unction  ;  if  he  dies,  restoration 
would  not  conduce  to  the  health  of  his  soul ! ! 

The  manner  of  administering  this  sacrament  is 
as  follows :  If  tlie  time  permits,  certain  prescribed 
prayers  are  said — the  Confiteor  is  repeated,  and  ab- 
solution is  granted — then  the  priest,  making  thrice 
the  sign  of  the  cross,  says,  "  In  the  name  of  the  Fa- 
ther, and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  may  all 
the  power  of  the  devil  be  extinguished  in  thee,  by 
the  laying  on  of  our  hands,  and  the  invocation  of  the 
holy  angels,  archangels,"  &c.  Then  dipping  his 
thumb  in  the  holy  oil,  he  anoints  the  sick  person  in 
the  form  of  a  cross,  upon  the  eyes,  the  ears,  the 
nose,  the  mouth,  the  hands,  and  feet ;  at  each  anoint- 
ing making  use  of  this  form  of  prayer :  ''  Through 
this  holy  unction  and  his  own  most  tender  mercy, 
may  the  Lord  pardon  thee  whatever  sin  thou  hast 
committed  by  thy  sight.  Amen."  And  the  same 
prayer  is  repeated,  adapting  the  form  to  the  several 
senses. 

The  requisite  dispositions  in  the  receiver  are, 
faith  in  the  sacrament — a  pure  desire  for  the  health 
of  his  soul,  and  of  his  body  if  expedient — resigna- 
tion— repentance — devotion. 

In  case  of  recovery  and  relapse,  it  may  be  repeat- 
ed, and  as  often  as  the  person  relapses. 

And  your  scriptural  authority  for  all  this  you  find 
in  James  v.  14,  15.  which  you  thus  translate  :  "Is 
any  sick  among  you  ?  Let  him  bring  in  the  priests 
of  the  Church,  and  let  them  pray  over  him,  anoint 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  19 

ing  him  with  oil  in  the  name  of  the  Lord ;  and  the 
prayer  of  faith  shall  save  the  sick  man,  and  the  Lord 
will  lift  him  up  :  and  if  he  be  in  sin,  his  sins  will  be 
forgiven  him." 

Such  is  your  Extreme  Unction,  as  described  by 
the  Council  of  Trent,  Challoner,  and  the  Poor  Man's 
Catechism.  Although  abridged,  you,  at  least,  will 
say  that  it  is  a  perfectly  fair  abridgement.  Let  us 
now  examine  it  in  the  light  of  Scripture  and  reason. 

I  ask  you  to  look  at  your  Greek  Testament,  and 
then  to  answer  me  on  what  authority  you  thus  trans- 
late a  portion  of  the  14th  verse  of  James  v. ;  "let 
him  bring  in  the  priests  of  the  Church  ?  Ah  !  the 
priests,  the  priests  ;  this  sacrament  is  for  their  bene- 
fit ;  and  by  a  mis-translation,  the  power  of  anointing 
and  praying  must  be  confined  to  them ! 

But  does  the  text  afford  the  shadow  of  a  support 
to  the  sacrament  ?  No,  not  even  the  shadow.  You 
utterly  pervert  the  meaning  of  the  apostle.  The 
anointing  and  prayer  of  James  is  for  the  life  of  the 
sick  ;  your  anointing  is  for  their  death,  and  is  never 
administered  whilst  there  is  any  hope  of  life.  The 
anointing  of  James  is  for  the  cure  of  the  body  ; — 
yours  is  for  the  cure  of  the  soul,  in  reference  to 
which  the  text  gives  no  direction.  The  saving  of 
the  sick,  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  are  in  conse- 
quence of  the  prayer  of  faith.  Can  none  but  a 
priest  offer  that  prayer  ?  The  anointing  of  JanKjg 
and  the  prayers  to  be  offered  were  to  be  followed 
with  miraculous  recovery  ;  yours  are  to  be  followed 


20  kirwan's  letters 

with  speedy  death.  The  cures  wrought  by  the 
anointing  of  James,  were  for  the  establishment  of 
the  claims  of  the  Gospel ; — yours,  for  the  purpose 
of  establishing  the  ghostly  authority  of  your  priest 
hood.  That  text  above  quoted  is  confessedly  the  only 
one  on  which  you  build  your  sacrament ;  and  that 
text  must  be  mistranslated,  and  utterly  tortured  out 
of  its  sense,  and  meaning,  and  end,  even  to  afford  a 
pretext  to  the  use  which  you  make  of  it.  And  this 
is  but  one  of  the  many  instances  in  which  your 
church  has  changed  and  perverted  the  original 
meaning  of  the  Scriptures,  and  forged  them  into 
chains  to  bind  men  to  your  system  of  delusion. 

Having  thus  swept  from  your  extreme  unction 
the  only  scriptural  authority  claimed  for  it,  and 
hung  it  up  as  a  commandment  of  men,  I  have  a  few 
questions  to  ask  in  reference  to  it. 

Is  it  so  that  God's  people  need  the  oil  of  olives, 
blessed  on  Maunday-Thursday,  to  be  placed  upon 
their  eyes,  and  nose,  and  ears,  and  tongue,  and 
hands,  and  feet,  to  secure  the  remission  of  their  sins ; 
and  to  heal  the  maladies  of  their  souls,  and  to  ena- 
ble them  to  repel  their  spiritual  enemies  ?  If  this 
oil  can  do  it,  what  need  is  there  of  the  blood  of 
Christ  ?  If  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  the  presence  of 
his  Spirit  can  do  it,  what  is  the  need  of  this  olive  oil  ? 

But  again  ;  you  require  in  the  receiver  of  this 
sacrament,  the  dispositions  stated  above.  Those  are 
truly  Christian  dispositions,  bating  a  few  things  in 
your  manner  of  stating  ihem.     If  these  dispositions 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  21 

are  possessed,  will  not  the  soul  of  the  person  be  sav- 
ed without  your  olive  oil  ?  If  not  possessed,  will 
your  olive  oil  save  them  ? 

Again ;  among  the  effects  of  this  sacrament,  as 
stated  in  the  Poor  Man's  Catechism,  p.  329,  is  this : 
"it  brings  him  (the  sick  man)  in  safety  to  the  port 
of  eternal  happiness."  Now,  Sir,  does  extreme 
unction  save  from  purgatory  ?  This  you  will  not 
say.  If  not,  then  it  only  takes  him  to  the  port  of 
eternal  happiness.  From  the  port  he  is  turned  into 
purgatory.  And  your  priests  get  paid  for  the  olive 
oil  by  which  he  slips  safely  to  the  port  of  eternal 
happiness — and  then  they  get  paid  for  the  masses  by 
which  they  get  him  out  of  purgatorial  fires  into  hea- 
ven !  So  that  extreme  unction  is  simply  a  device  to 
increase  "  the  alms  and  the  suffrages  of  the  faithful." 

Again ;  what  a  low  and  sad  view  of  the  religion 
of  God  does  this  sacrament  give  to  a  dying  man ! 
It  is  administered  to  all  that  seek  it  on  a  dying  bed. 
Let  us  suppose  a  case,  which,  no  doubt,  often  oc- 
curs. There  is  a  papist  in  the  article  of  death.  To 
this  hour  he  has  lived  in  sin.  Feeling  that  death  is 
upon  him,  he  sends  for  his  priest.  He  thinks  now 
of  nothing  but  confession — the  eucharist,  and  ex- 
treme unction.  The  priest  appears  in  his  robes.  If 
the  sick  man  is  able,  he  confesses.  If  not  able,  the 
anointing  commences,  and  proceeds  in  the  way  al- 
ready stated.  He  is  crossed  and  anointed  on  his 
eyes,  his  nose,  his  tongue,  his  ears,  his  hands,  and 
feet,  and  the  prescribed  prayers  are  said.     The  man 


JJ2  kirwan's  letters 

now  dies  in  peace,  feeling  that  his  sins  are  remit- 
ted— that  his  soul  is  healed  of  its  infirmities — that 
his  spiritual  enemies  are  all  subdued,  through  the 
efficacy  of  olive  oil,  blessed  on  Maunday-Tliursday  ! 
Not  a  thought  of  the  dying  man  is  directed  to  the 
cross  of  Jesus  Christ,  or  to  the  efficacy  of  his  atone- 
ment !  So  that  extreme  unction  is  a  papal  incanta- 
tion, by  which  the  priest  makes  a  deluded  people  to 
believe  that  the  keys  of  heaven  and  hell  hang  by  his 
girdle — that  by  his  olive  oil  he  can  procure  for  them 
all  that  the  Bible  suspends  on  faith  in  Jesus  Christ ! 
Esteem  me  not  harsh.  Rev.  Sir,  when  I  declare  it 
as  my  deep  conviction,  that  by  your  sacrament  of 
extreme  unction,  your  church  is  deluding  and  damn- 
ing multitudes  of  souls,  and  from  year  to  year.  It 
is  a  wicked  substitution  of  olive  oil  for  the  blood  of 
Christ  at  the  dying  hour,  and  simply  and  only  for 
the  benefit  of  your  priests. 

And  what  a  tremendous  use  your  church  has 
made  of  it.  Gaining  access  to  the  dying  beds  of 
kings,  princes,  and  barons,  in  past  days,  with  your 
olive  oil,  you  ha^  e  extorted  millions  of  money  from 
those  who  believed  in  your  ghostly  power.  You 
have  thus  enriched  the  church  and  impoverished 
the  people.  You  have  built  palaces  for  your  bish- 
ops, and  reduced  the  people  to  beggary.  What  will" 
a  dying  sinner  witlihold  from  a  man  who,  he  believes, 
has  the  power  to  lock  him  up  in  hell ;  or  by  a  little 
olive  oil  rubbed  on  with  his  thumb,  can  conduct  him 
to  the  port  of  eternal  happiness  ? 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES.  23 

The.  man  yet  lives  who  narrates  the  following 
scene,  of  which  he  was  an  eye  and  ear  witness. 
The  chief  of  one  of  our  Indian  tribes,  a  man  of  great 
sagacity  and  decision,  was  on  his  dying  bed.  Manv 
of  his  people,  by  a  French  Jesuit,  were  converted 
to  the  faith  of  your  church.  He  knew  the  wiles  of 
your  missionary,  and  forbade  him  admission  to  his 
dying  bed.  The  priest  came  with  his  olive  oil,  and 
pressed  so  hard  for  admission  to  him,  that  it  was 
granted.  "  Stay,"  said  the  dying  chief  to  the  man 
who  relates  the  story,  "  stay  outside  the  door,  and 
if  I  knock,  come  in."  The  priest  entered,  and  the 
door  was  closed.  Soon  a  violent  knock  is  heard, 
and  the  man  enters  the  room.  "  Take  him  out,'' 
said  the  dying  chief;  "  take  him  out — land — land- 
give  me  land."  The  priest  would  put  on  the  olive 
oil,  but  wanted  first  a  grant  of  land. 

Rev.  Sir,  your  church  must  annul  this  sacrament 
of  extreme  unction,  before  I  can  return  to  its  em- 
brace. To  my  mind  it  is  extreme  nonsense.  Should 
not  incantations  over  dying  men  be  left  to  Hotten- 
tots ?  1  implore  you  to  seek  some  other  market  for 
your  olive  oil,  than  the  chambers  of  the  dying. 
With  great  respect,  yours, 

KiRWAN. 


24  kirwan's  letters 


LETTER  III. 

PENANCE. 

The  pretended  Sacrament  described — No  Scriptnre  warrant  for  it — Its  »l^ 

surdities — A  personal  inquiry. 

My  Dear  Sir  : — With  your  leave,  I  will  proceed 
with  my  statement  of  the  reasons  which  prevent  my 
return  to  the  embraces  of  your  church.  Permit  me 
to  ask,  in  the  present  letter,  your  consideration  of 
the  reason  which  I  deduce  from  your  sacrament  of 
Penance.  It  presents  an  objection  as  strong  as  your 
sacrament  of  Extreme  Unction,  which,  without 
meaning  to  be  irreverent,  I  have  already  pronounced 
Extreme  Nonsense. 

As  but  few,  even  of  your  own  people,  understand 
this  sacrament,  I  will  give  a  brief  statement  of  it, 
and  from  your  own  authors. 

Penance  is  a  sacrament  by  which  the  sins  com- 
mitted after  baptism  are  forgiven.  Your  doctrine  is, 
that  original  sin  is  washed  away  in  baptism  ;  and 
that  penance  secures  the  forgiveness  of  all  sins  com- 
mitted after  baptism !  Where  is  this  distinction 
taught  in  the  Bible  ? 

On  the  part  of  the  penitent,  penance  consists  in 
contrition,  confession,  and  satisfaction.  Contrition  is 
n  hearty  sorrow  for  sin,  with  a  resolution  to  sin  no 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  25 

more  ;  confession  is  a  full  and  sincere  declaration  of 
all  our  sins  to  a  priest ;  satisfaction  is  a  faithful  per- 
formance of  the  prayers  and  good  works  enjoined  by 
the  confessor.     So  far  for  the  penitent. 

On  the  part  of  the  priest,  it  consists  in  the  absolu- 
tion which  he  pronounces  by  the  authority  of  Jesus 
Christ.  The  form  of  absolution  is  in  these  words  : 
"  I  absolve  thee  from  thy  sins,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

The  effects  of  this  sacrament  are  thus  stated  in 
the  "Poor  Man's  Catechism:"  "It  remits  all  the 
sins  of  the  penitent  without  exception — restores  him 
to  the  grace  he  had  forfeited — replenishes  his  soul 
with  the  greatest  peace,  tranquillity,  and  spiritual 
delights,  and  reinstates  him  again  in  the  friendship 
of  God,  as  the  prodigal  son,  after  his  return,  was  re- 
stored to  his  former  honours  in  the  house  of  his  fa- 
ther." Wonderful  results  from  such  causes  !  May 
I  ask  here,  if  the  parable  of  the  prodigal  son  is  meant 
to  represent  the  way  of  return  of  a  sinner  to  God, 
where  did  he  stop  to  make  confession  and  receive 
absolution  ? 

None  but  a  priest  can  grant  absolution;  and 
the  power  of  the  priest  to  absolve,  you  draw  from 
John  XX.  22,  23  :  "  And  when  he  had  said,  this,  he 
breathed  on  them,  and  said  unto  them.  Receive  ye 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they 
are  remitted  unto  them ;  and  whosesoever  sins  yo 
retain,  they  are  retained,"  and  from  Matt.  xvi.  15-li5. 

Such,  Sir,  hi  brief,  is  your  sacrament  of  penance. 

a 


26  kirwan's  letters 

Let  us  now  look  at  it  in  the  light  of  Scripture  and 
reason. 

And  let  me  first  ask  you,  how  do  you  make  a  sac- 
rament of  penance  ?  Look  at  Chaloner's  definition 
of  a  sacrament :  "  It  is  an  outward  sign  or  ceremony 
of  Christ's  institution,  by  which  grace  is  given  to  the 
soul  of  the  worthy  receiver."  Now,  what  is  the 
outward  sign  of  penance  ?  It  has  no  outward  sign, 
no  external  ceremony.  It  is  not  a  sacrament,  ac- 
cording to  your  own  rules.  Your  absolution  is  a 
different  thing  from  your  penance. 

Again,  two  of  the  constituent  elements  of  penance, 
confession  and  absolution,  have  no  foundation  in 
Scripture.  Of  confession  I  have  already  spoken.  I 
have  shown  it  to  be  a  priestly  device  of  the  most  fa- 
tal influence  upon  human  liberty :  its  tendency  to 
the  corruption  of  morals  is  acknowledged.  There  is 
on  my  table  a  book,  called  "  The  Garden  of  the 
Soul,"  bearing  on  its  title  page  your  own  name  ;  and 
such  a  garden !  Now,  conceive  yourself  sitting  in 
your  confessional,  and  whispering  through  the  little 
hole  in  its  side,  in  the  ears  of  a  modest  or  immodest 
young  girl  of  eighteen,  or  an  amiable  young  wife  of 
twenty-one  years,  the  questions  on  pages  212  and 
214  !  Sir,  I  dare  not  quote  them  here.  I  strove  to 
read  them  to  a  friend  a  few  days  since,  and  before  I 
got  half  through  he  cried  out,  "Stop,  I  can  hear  no 
more."  The  polluting  confessional  is  a  part  of  your 
sacrament  of  penance.  Of  absolution  I  shall  speak 
in  the  sequel. 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  27 

Look  at  tne  texts,  for  a  moment,  which  yort  quote 
as  teaching  your  power  of  absolution.  It  seen*s  to 
me  that  if  the)''  were  capable  of  any  other  interpre- 
tation than  that  which  you  give  them,  you  would 
prefer  it,  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the  monstrous  power 
with  which  it  clothes  your  priests.  But  alas !  it  is 
for  the  sake  of  that  power  that  you  pervert  them. 
As  there  were  various  opinions  entertained  as  to  who 
Christ  was,  we  hear  him,  in  Matt.  xvi.  15,  asking 
his  disciples,  "  Whom  say  ye  that  I  am  ?  "  Peter 
replies,  "  Thou  art  Christ  the  Son  of  the  living  God." 
Jesus  replies,  "  Upon  this  rock,"  that  is,  the  confes- 
sion of  Peter  that  he  was  the  Son  of  the  living  God, 
"  I  will  build  my  Church."  How  simple  and  com- 
mon sense ! 

Addressing  Peter,  and  through  him  the  other  dis- 
ciples, he  says,  "  I  will  give  thee  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  Need  I  tell  you,  Sir,  that  by 
"  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  here  is  meant  the  Church 
of  Christ.  Can  such  a  master  in  Israel  as  you  are 
be  ignorant  of  this  ?  This  being  so,  "  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  "  simply  means,  the  power  of  admitting 
proper  persons  to  the  Church,  and  excluding  impro- 
per persons  from  it.  Keys,  you  know,  were  the  an- 
cient emblems  of  authority.  How  simple  and  com- 
mon sense  is  all  this. 

Continuing  to  address  Peter,  and  through  him  the 
other  disciples,  he  says,  "  Whatsoever  thou  shalt 
bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven  ;  and  what- 
soever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in 


28 

heaven."  To  bind  and  to  loose  here  are  equivalent 
to  bidding  and  forbidding,  to  granting  and  refusing, 
to  declaring  lawful  or  unlawful.  The  apostles  were 
endued  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  they  might  infal- 
libly declare  the  will  of  God  to  mankind,  and  deter- 
mine what  was,  or  was  not,  binding  on  the  con- 
science— to  show  what  persons  ought,  or  ought  not,  to 
be  admitted  to  the  Church — and  to  decide  on  the 
characters  of  those  whose  sins  were,  or  were  not, 
forgiven.  And  whatever  in  these,  or  similar  things, 
they  bound  or  loosed  on  earth,  would  be  bound  or 
loosed  in  heaven.  This  is  also  the  meaning  of  John 
XX.  22,  23,  already  quoted.  This,  Sir,  I  believe  to 
be  the  common  sense,  the  fair  and  just  interpreta- 
tion, of  a  passage  on  which  your  church  has  built  up 
a  priestly  power,  that  has  overshadowed  the  earth 
and  enslaved  nations.  Where  now.  Sir,  is  your  su- 
premacy of  Peter — your  power  of  the  keys — your 
power  of  absolution  ?  Gone,  like  the  morning  cloud 
before  the  sun.  Blessed  be  God,  you  have  not  yet 
turned  your  keys  upon  the  common  sense  of  the 
world ! 

Now,  Sir,  look  for  a  moment  at  some  of  the  absur- 
dities connected  with  your  interpretations  of  the 
above  texts.     They  are  sufficiently  startling. 

Your  church  is  built  upon  Peter.  "  Thou  art  Pe- 
ter, and  Jjpon  this  rock  I  build  my  church."  So  that 
your  church  is  built  upon  the  person  of  Peter ;  ours 
is  built  upon  the  truth  declared  by  Peter.  Is,  Sir, 
yonr  rock  as  our  rock  f 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES,  29 

Is  your  church  built  upon  Peter  ?  Now  turn  from 
the  19th  verse  of  the  18th  of  Matthew,  which  we 
have  been  considering,  to  the  22d  and  23d  verses  of 
the  same  chapter.  Peter  is  represented  as  rebuking 
his  Lord,  for  the  intimations  he  had  given  of  his  ap- 
proaching death.  But  the  Master,  turning  upon 
Peter,  thus  addressed  him :  "  Get  thee  behind  me, 
Satan."  So  that,  on  your  principles  of  interpreta- 
tion, your  church  must  be  built  upon  Satan ! 

What  your  priests,  however  profane  or  wicked, 
bind  or  loose  upon  earth,  is  bound  or  loosed  in  hea- 
ven. Now,  here  is  a  wicked  man  absolved  by  a 
priest ;  does  he  go  to  heaven  ?  Here  is  a  good  man 
bound  by  a  priest ;  does  he  go  to  hell  ?  It  must  be 
so,  on  your  principles.  But  you  say  he  must  be  a 
sincere  penitent,  to  gain  any  benefit  from  absolution. 
But  if  truly  contrite,  he  can  get  to  heaven  without 
your  absolution. 

Take  another  case  :  the  man  bound  by  the  curate 
may  be  loosed  by  the  parish  priest.  I  take  the  fol- 
lowing illustration  from  a  book  before  me  :  A  peni- 
tent is  enjoined  to  abstain  from  breakfast  every 
morning,  until  his  next  confession.  Christmas  day 
intervenes,  and  he  eats  breakfast ;  not  thinking  that 
that  day  could  be  included.  On  confessing  this  at 
his  next  confession,  the  curate  drove  him  from  his 
knee,  declaring  that  he  would  have  no  more  t3  do 
with  a  person  that  so  trifled  with  his  commands.  On 
the  borders  of  despair,  he  went  to  the  parish  priest, 
toiling  him  the  whole  story.     "  Do  not  mind  it,  my 

3* 


so 

child/'  said  the  kind-liearted  father,  "  I  will  confess 
you."  He  did  so,  and  absolved  him.  Here  one 
priest  binds  sin  on  his  soul,  and  another  unbinds  it. 
He  dies  in  this  state.  What  becomes  of  him  ?  Does 
the  binding  of  the  curate  send  him  to  hell,  or  does 
the  loosing  of  the  parish  priest  send  him  to  heaven  ? 
What  becomes  of  him  ?  Is  he  suspended  somewhere 
between  heaven  and  hell  ? 

But  let  us  look  at  the  satisfaction,  which  is  a  part  of 
the  sacrament  of  penance.  "  It  consists  in  a  faithful 
performance  of  the  penance  enjoined  by  the  priest  to 
whom  we  confess,  whether  as  to  restitution,  or  pray- 
ers, or  alms-deeds,  or  fasting,  to  make  some  repara- 
tion, by  these  eminent  good  works,  for  the  injury 
done  to  God."  The  penance  enjoined  by  the  priest 
is  an  "  exchange  which  God  makes  of  eternal  pun- 
ishment  which  we  have  deserved  by  sin,  into  these 
small  penitential  works."  I  quote  from  Chaloner. 
And  without  satisfaction  like  this,  the  sinner  cannot 
be  saved. 

Now,  Sir,  will  you  tell  me  where  this  is  taught  in 
the  Scriptures  ?  Where  are  we  told  that  the  bloo<l 
of  Christ  is  not  sufficient  to  cleanse  from  all  sin  ? 
Where  is  authority  given  to  ministers  or  priests  to 
exchange  "  eternal  punishment  for  small  penitential 
works  ?  "  Where  does  the  Bible  make  a  difference 
between  ante-baptism  and  post-baptism  sins  ? 

Take  another  view  of  this  thing.  Penance  means 
punishment.  And  "  prayers,  fasting,  and  alms,"  are 
enjoined  by  the  priests  as  penance ;  that  is,  as  pua- 


TO   BISHOP    HUGHES.  31 

ishment.  So  that  your  church  mal«!S  prayers  a  pun- 
ishment to  atone  for  sins  !  What  the  Bible  makes  a 
privilege,  you  make  a  punishment !  The  fasting 
which  is  beneficial,  is  that  to  which  we  are  led  by  a 
sense  of  our  sins :  you  enjoin  it  as  a  punishment ! 
And  can  alms-giving  be  a  punishment,  save  to  the 
worshipper  of  money  ?  What  are  the  prayers  or 
alms  worth  that  are  offered  or  given  as  a  punishment  ? 
The  penance  enjoined,  and  the  austerities  volun- 
tarily practised,  are  sometimes  very  singular,  when 
considered  in  the  light  of  making  atonement  for  sins. 
Sometimes  they  consist  in  a  set  number  of  "  Our  Fa- 
thers "  and  "  Hail  Marys,""  counted  on  the  beads  or 
fingers,  once  or  oftener  a  day,  for  so  many  days ; 
sometimes  in  fasting  for  a  given  time,  on  given  days, 
from  meat,  eggs,  &c.;  sometimes  in  a  short  pilgrim- 
age to  St.  John's  well,  or  St.  Patrick's ;  sometimes, 
in  Ireland,  in  going  to  the  Seven  Stations,  and  walk- 
ing on  bare  knees  on  the  ground  from  one  station  to 
another.  The  penances  enjoined  by  the  priest  are 
optional  and  multiform,  and  are  modified  according 
to  his  own  prejudices  and  the  dignity  of  the  confess- 
ing penitent.  Some  of  the  voluntary  austerities  are 
curious  enough.  St.  Dominick,  when  a  child,  would 
leave  his  cradle  and  lie  upon  the  cold  ground.  I 
have  seen  many  an  urchin  do  this  whose  name  is  not 
yet,  and  is  not  likely  to  be,  in  the  calendar.  St. 
Francis  used  to  call  his  body,  Brother  Ass,  and  whip 
it  as  badly  as  Balaam  did  his.  St.  Francis  Loyola 
put  on  iron  chains  and  a  hair  shirt,  and  flogged  him- 


8^  kirwan's  letters 

self  thrice  a  day.  He  deserved  it  all.  St.  Macarius 
went  naked  six  months  in  a  desert,  sufierini;  himself 
to  be  stung  with  flies,  to  atone  for  the  sin  of  having 
killed  a  flea.  Now,  is  it  not  a  wicked  burlesque  upon 
the  religion  of  God,  to  make  ignorant  people  believe 
that  in  these  and  similar  ways  they  secure  an  ex- 
Cihange  of  eternal  punishment?  Language  supplies 
no  words  in  which  I  can  express  to  you  my  deep 
abhorrence  of  your  sacrament  of  penance. 

Picture  to  yourself.  Rev.  Sir,  this  whole  thing. 
There  is  a  papist  who  has  sinned  grievously  after 
baptism.  How  can  he  get  to  heaven  ?  Through  the 
sacrament  of  penance.  It  is  not  sufficient  that  he 
repent  of  it ;  no,  he  must  confess  to  you ;  then  he 
must  perform  all  the  austerities  that  you  enjoin  •,  then 
you  absolve  him ;  and  then,  taking  up  the  key  that 
hangs  by  your  girdle,  you  open  to  him  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  So,  then,  it  is  in  your  power  to  say  who 
shall  and  who  shall  not  enter  heaven.  What  blas- 
phemous assumption,  when  the  divine  Saviour  tells 
me,  and  proclaims  to  all  men,  that  "  he  that  believ- 
eth  on  the  Son  hath  life."  Such  assumptions  are 
only  worthy  of  tne  world's  scorn. 

It  is  amazing  how  men,  pretending  to  be  religious, 
could  contrive  such  a  sacrament.  It  is  amazing 
liow  rational  men  can  believe  it.  But  it  is  not  amaz- 
ing how  men  believing  it,  and  in  the  power  with 
which  it  clothes  you,  should  fawn  at  your  feet  as 
spaniels.  It  is  no  wonder  that  they  pour  their  trea- 
sures inio  your  cotTers  as  water. 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES.  3d 

f  believe  in  repentance,  and  hope  I  am  not  a  stran- 
ger to  it.  I  reject  penance,  as  a  priestly  device  to 
rob  the  people  of  their  money  and  ruin  their  souls. 
Your  church  must  lay  aside  this  terrible  sacrament 
before  I  return  to  her  embrace. 

Before  closing,  let  me  ask  you  one  question.  Do 
you  believe  that  none  go  to  heaven  from  New- York 
but  those  to  whom  you  and  your  priests,  with  your 
keys,  open  its  gates  ?  It  takes  a  hard  heart  and  a 
soft  head  to  believe  this.  I  charge  you  with  neither. 
With  great  respect,  yours, 

KiRWAN. 


84  kirwan's  lette-rs 


LETTER  lY. 

Miracles — Milner's  vindication — Many  examples — Legends  of  tne  saints— • 
A  miracle  of  my  own  working — Why  so  few  miracles  since  the  Refurm»- 

tiOD. 

My  Dear  Sir  : — Another  reason  which  prevents 
my  return  to  the  bosom  of  your  church,  I  draw  from 
the  miraculous  'power  claimed  for  your  saints  and 
clergy.  I  have  felt  disposed  to  say  nothing  on  this 
subject,  because  of  the  extravagance  of  the  claim 
itself;  and  because  of  my  reluctance  to  state  the 
absurdities  which  crowd  the  legends  of  your  saints, 
and  which  your  church  has  palmed,  and  yet  palms 
on  the  world  as  miracles.  1  feel  afraid  that  some 
candid  papist  will  conclude  that  I  have  at  last  com- 
menced drawing  on  my  imagination,  and  that  the 
influence  of  my  former  reasoning  with  him  will  be 
weakened,  by  the  utter,  the  intense  absurdity  of  the 
miracles  claimed  for  your  saints,  which  I  shall  quote. 
But,  pledging  myself  to  fairness  of  statement,  I  will 
risk  the  consequences. 

Milner,  as  you  know,  devotes  his  23d  letter  to  vin- 
dicate the  possession  of  this  power  by  your  church. 
He  says,  "  the  Catholic  Church  being  always  the 
beloved  spouse  of  Christ,  and  continuing  at  all  times 
to  bring  forth  children  of  heroic  sanctity,  God  fails 
not  in  this,'  any  more  than  in  past  ages,  to  illustrate 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  35 

her  and  them  by  unquestionable  miracles :  accord- 
ingly, in  those  processes  which  are  constantly  going 
on  at  the  apostolical  see,  for  the  canonization  of  new 
saints,  fresh  miracles  of  a  recent  date  continue  to  be 
proved,  with  the  highest  degree  of  evidence,  as  I  can 
testify,  from  having  perused,  on  the  spot,  the  official 
printed  account  of  some  of  them."  And  miraculous 
power  is  claimed  by  all  your  writers,  and  is  put  forth 
as  an  evidence  of  yours  being  the  true  church  ;  and 
its  absence  from  Protestant  churches  is  considered 
by  you  a  conclusive  evidence  against  them. 

Milner  not  only  claims  this  power  for  your  church, 
but  gives  the  following  miracles  that  were  perform- 
ed, to  his  own  certain  knowledge  and  belief:  Twen- 
ty years  before  it  happened,  a  nun  predicted  the  fate 
of  the  king  and  queen  of  France,  Louis  XVI.  and  his 
consort,  who  were  beheaded.  In  1814,  Joseph  Lamb 
fell  from  a  hay-rick  and  injured  his  spine.  At  Gars- 
wood,  in  England,  is  preserved  the  hand  of  one  Ar- 
rowsmith,  a  priest,  who  was  put  to  death  at  Lancas- 
ter, in  the  reio;n  of  Charles  I.  Lamb  was  siorned  on 
the  back  by  this  hand,  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and 
was  mstantly  healed !  In  1809,  Mary  Wood,  in 
striving  to  open  a  window,  greatly  injured  her  arm, 
so  as  almost  to  lose  the  use  of  it.  She  employed  phy- 
sicians in  vain.  She  finally  had  recourse  to  God, 
through  St.  Winfred,  by  a  Novena — that  is,  prayers 
ofiered  for  nine  days.  She  put  a  piece  of  moss  from 
the  Saint's  well  on  her  arm,  and  it  was  instantly  re- 
siored !     Miss  Winifred  White,  for  some  time  dis- 


80  kirwan's  letters 

eased  with  a  curvature  of  the  spine,  was  healed  in 
an  instant  of  time,  by  bathing  in  Holywell !  Mil- 
ner  was  not  a  witness  of  any  of  these  miracles  ;  but 
they  were  proved  true  to  his  satisfaction  !  Marvel- 
lous marvels ! 

Now,  Sir,  permit  me  to  add  to  these  miracles  a 
few  others  from  the  Legends  of  the  Saints,  and  no 
doubt  equally  well  attested  as  those  adduced  by  the 
learned  Milner.  As  I  have  but  few  of  these  legends 
belbre  me,  I  will  quote  from  a  recent  review  of  the 
"  Lives  of  the  English  Saints,"  now  in  a  course  of 
publication  by  those  marvellous  men,  the  Oxford  di- 
vines, worthy  of  a  place  in  the  museum  as  Protest- 
ant curiosities. 

Somewhere  near  York,  St.  Augustine  restored  a 
blind  man  to  his  sight.  St.  Sulpicius,  when  a  mere 
child,  drove  away,  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  two 
black  demons  who  strove  to  scare  him  from  his  de- 
votions. St.  Amatus  miraculously  stopped  a  lofty 
rock  in  the  midst  of  its  descent,  with  which  a  fiend 
hought  to  crush  him  in  his  cell.  The  father  of  St. 
Furceus  contracted  a  clandestine  marriage  with  a 
king's  daughter.  When  the  king  found  that  she  was 
likely  to  be  a  mother,  he  ordered  her  to  be  burned. 
She  shed  such  a  flood  of  tears  as  to  put  out  the  fire. 
Finding  he  could  not  burn,  he  banished  her,  and  Fur- 
ceus  was  born  in  a  foreign  land.  St.  Mochua  had  to 
call  the  stags  from  the  forest  to  feed  the  multitude  of 
his  followers.  He  ordered  their  picked  bones  to  be 
placed  in  their  skins,  and  by  an  incantation  over  the 


TO    BISHOP    :iUGHES.  37 

skins  arid  bones  the  stags  were  brought  to  life,  jump. 
ed  up,  and  ran  back  to  the  woods.  St.  Euchadius 
did  the  same  with  an  old  favorite  crow,  that  he  had 
to  kill  to  provide  meat  for  his  guests.  The  piety  of 
St.  Fechin  was  so  fervent,  that  when  he  bathed  him- 
self in  cold  water  the  water  became  almost  boiling 
hot.  When  St.  Mochua  wanted  a  fire  in  his  cell,  he 
called  down  a  fire  from  heaven  to  light  it.  St.  Goar 
of  Treves,  wanting  a  beam  to  hang  up  his  cape,  hung 
it  on  a  sunbeam,  where  it  remained  until  he  took  it 
down.  St.  Columbanus  miraculously  kept  the  grubs 
from  his  cabbage.  When  St.  Mael  was  in  want  of 
fishes,  he  caught  them  on  dry  ground ;  and  St.  Be- 
rach,  when  in  want  of  fruit,  made  willows  to  bear 
apples.  St.  Fechin,  when  hungry,  turned  acorns 
into  pork.  In  travelling  he  was  stopped  by  a  large 
tree  which  fell  across  his  road :  he  commanded  it  to 
make  way,  and  it  instantly  rose  to  its  place.  He 
built  a  mill  on  a  hill  top  :  being  asked  about  the  wa- 
ter, he  went  to  a  lake,  a  mile  distant,  into  which  he 
threw  his  stick ;  the  stick  followed  him  on  his  re- 
turn, and  the  water  after  it,  and  the  mill  worked 
finely.  Some  thievish  crows  carried  away  some 
of  the  thatch  of  St.  Cuthbert's  hut  to  build  their  nests : 
at  his  rebuke  they  not  only  made  an  apology,  but 
they  brought  him  a  piece  of  hog's  lard  to  make 
amends  for  the  injury.  To  this  miracle  Bede  testi- 
fies. A  raven  plucked  out  the  eye  of  an  ass  of  Stc 
James  of  Tarentaise  :  the  saint  made  a  hasty  invo- 
cation, and  the  raven  immediately  returned  and  put 

4 


88  kirwan's  letters 

the  eye  in  its  place,  without  the  least  injury  to  the 
ass.  St.  Augustine  was  treated  with  insults  in  a  cer- 
tain town  in  England — the  fishmongers  being  espe- 
cially active  in  the  bad  work,  hanging  the  tails  of 
fish  upon  his  garments  and  those  of  his  followers. 
For  generations  afterwards  the  children  of  that  place 
were  born  with  tails. 

Your  legends  narrate  miracles  like  these  to  any 
amount ;  and  they  are  now  reproduced  from  the 
French  and  English  press,  for  the  purpose  of  encour- 
aging the  faith  of  the  pious.  Wonderful  as  these 
are,  they  are  by  no  means  as  wonderful  as  many 
others  that  the  limits  of  a  letter  forbid  me  to  quote. 

And  some  of  the  saints  wrought  a  profusion  of  mi- 
racles. St.  Fechin  was  a  wonderful  hand  at  them. 
St.  Francis  far  surpassed  the  Saviour  himself. 
Christ  was  transfigured  but  once — St.  Francis  more 
than  twenty  times.  St.  Francis  and  his  disciples 
restored  more  than  a  thousand  blind  to  sight — and 
more  than  a  thousand  lame  to  the  use  of  their  limbs 
— and  more  than  a  thousand  dead  to  life  ! 

Now,  sir,  whilst  these  things  are  gravely  narrat- 
ed in  your  legends,  and  are  read  by  your  common 
people  from  your  own  books  with  the  most  pious  be- 
lief in  their  truth,  it  is  more  than  probable  that  this 
statement  of  them  will  be  denounced  as  a  bundle  cf 
Protestant  lies !  When  a  boy  I  read  a  life  of  St. 
Francis  Xavier,  which  narrated  miracles  wrought 
by  him  far  surpassing  any  here  cited. 

But  why  go  to  the  miracles  of  the  legends ;  you 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  39 

are  daily  performing  miracles  which  come  up  to  any 
of  them.  Your  daily  changing  of  a  wafer  into  the 
real  body  of  Christ,  and  then  eating  him,  beats  any 
thing  St.  Fechin  ever  did.  Your  preparing  an  old 
sinner  for  heaven  by  rubbing  him  with  olive  oil,  and 
then  opening  its  gates  to  him  by  the  keys  which  are 
only  in  your  possession,  far  surpasses  Fechin's  turn- 
ing acorns  to  pork.  We  believe  the  swine  them- 
selves are  constantly  doing  this  in  our  western  woods. 
And  in  Ireland  your  priests  are  constantly  perform- 
ing miraculous  cures  on  men  and  cattle.  Even 
your  common  people  there  work  miracles.  When 
a  thunder  storm  is  raging,  they  kindle  a  fire,  and 
heat  the  tongs  red  hot.  This  preserves  their  cattle 
from  the  lightning.  If  they  are  killed  notwithstand- 
ing, it  is  in  chastisement  for  some  sins  not  confessed, 
or  some  penances  not  rightly  performed.  Perhaps, 
Sir,  it  may  astonish  you  when  I  tell  you  that  I  my- 
self, whilst  yet  in  your  faith,  wrought  two  or  three. 
Near  my  father's  residence  was  a  wood  in  which  a 
man  was  once  killed.  His  ghost  was  regularly  seen 
after  dark.  I  never  passed  through  that  wood  with- 
out crossing  myself,  and  saying  Hail  Mary.  And  I 
assure  you  I  never  saw  the  ghost.  After  dusk,  in 
the  spring  of  the  year,  I  wat  sent  on  an  errand  to  a 
neighbor's  house,  which  was  separated  from  ours  by 
two  or  three  fields.  As  I  ran  along  I  saw  through 
the  magnifying  twilight  what  was  obviously  an  evil 
spirit.  I  stopped  suddenly,  and  the  sweat  com- 
menced pouring.     Naturally  of  a  resolute  spirit,  1 


40  kirwan's  letters 

thus  reasoned  :  if  I  run  back  he  can  catch  me ;  if  1 
go  forward  he  can  but  catch  me.  So  after  saying 
my  Hail  Mary,  and  crossing  myself,  I  went  forward 
with  a  trembling  step.  As  I  advanced  the  horns  (»f 
the  fiend  became  perfectly  obvious.  Almost  dead 
with  fear  I  rushed  forward  and  caught  hold  of  them. 
And  marvellous  to  narrate,  those  fiendish  horns 
were  instantly  turned  into  the  handles  of  a  plough  ! 
Now  I  submit  it  to  you,  sir,  whether  these  miracles 
wrought  by  myself,  are  not  as  great  as  those  wrought 
by  St.  Mochua,  or  St.  Columbanus.  And  yet  I  fear 
my  chance  for  canonization  is  exceedingly  small. 

But  considering  the  grave  effects  which  have  fol- 
lowed this  claim  of  yours,  it  ought  not,  perhaps,  to 
be  treated  lightly.  And  yet  it  is  difficult  to  treat  it 
otherwise. 

Now,  sir,  will  you  say  that  the  miracles  adduced 
by  Milner  are  worthy  of  a  moment's  consideration  ? 
Look  at  them  again.  A  man  hurt  his  back  by  fall- 
ing from  a  hay-rick,  and  is  cured  by  a  dead  man's 
hand !  A  girl  in  opening  a  window  cut  her  arm, 
and  felt  difficulty  in  using  it ;  she  puts  on  a  piece 
of  moss  and  her  arm  gets  well.  Another  girl  has  a 
diseased  spine ;  she  is  cured  by  bathing  in  Holy- 
well. Are  these  proofs  to  any  mind  that  your  church 
possesses  miraculous  power  ?  If  these  are  not,  can 
the  miracles  selected  from  the  legends  of  the  middle 
ages  be  ? 

Can  you,  for  a  moment,  place  any  of  your  mira- 
cles on  an  equality  with  those  wrought  by  the  Sa* 


TO    EISHOP   HL'GHES.  41' 

vioiir  and  his  apostles  ?  Milner  does  it,  sad  I  am  to 
say.  but  will  you,  John  Hughes,  do  it,  and  in  the 
city  of  New- York  ?  What !  place  these  marvels 
of  lying  legends,  the  productions  of  infamous  monks 
of  the  dark  ages,  who  made  saints  of  necromancers, 
and  miracles  of  witch  stories,  on  the  same  founda- 
tion as  the  miracles  of  Christ !  Will  you  gravely 
tell  us,  that  if  we  deny  the  one  we  must  deny  the 
other  ?  If  I  deny  that  the  fervor  of  the  piety  of  St. 
Fechin  almost  made  the  cold  water  to  boil  in  which 
he  bathed,  must  I  also  deny  that  Christ  raised  Laza- 
rus from  the  grave  ?  Will  you,  claiming  to  be  a 
bishop  in  the  church  of  God,  say  that  these  miracles 
are  sustained  by  evidence  equally  conclusive  as 
those  of  the  Scriptures  ?  This  I  will  only  believe 
when  you  say  so. 

Compare  the  object  of  scriptural  and  popish  mira- 
cles. The  one  are  divine  attestations  to  the  truth ; 
the  other,  to  yours  being  the  true  church.  How 
different  these  objects !  And  they  are  no  more  dif- 
ferent than  the  miracles.  And  in  point  of  force  and 
evidence,  Milner's  miracles  cannot  be  compared  to 
those  of  Irving,  or  of  our  own  Mormons. 

If  }  our  church  possesses  miraculous  power,  why 
so  sparma;  of  its  use  since  the  Reformation  ?  If  they 
are  not  all  impostures,  why  so  many  in  Ireland, 
whilst  tnere  are  none  in  Scotland  ;  why  so  many 
in  France  and  Spain,  and  so  few  in  New- York  ? 
Come  out  in  the  opeu  view  of  some  intelligent  Prot- 
estants, and  cure  a  man  that  was  born  blind,  or  raise 

4* 


43  kirwan's  letters 

ono  from  the  grave  that  lay  there  until  putrefaction 
commenced,  and,  then,  we  will  ask  you  to  excuse 
the  utter  scorn  with  which,  until  then,  we  must  treat 
your  impostures.  My  dear  Sir,  the  world  will  not 
forget  the  history  of  Hohenlohe,  the  modern  St. 
Fechin.  He  was  forbidden  to  work  his  miracles 
save  in  the  presence  of  some  commissioners  and 
physicians ;  he  appealed  to  the  pope.  The  holy 
father  enjoined  him  to  conform.  From  that  hour 
his  miracles  have  ceased. 

"  Ghosts  prudently  withdraw  at  peep  of  day." 

Miracles  were  vouchsafed  by  God  divinely  to  at- 
test the  truth  of  the  Gospel.  This  power  was  vouch- 
safed to  the  Apostles,  and  was  continued  in  the 
church  until  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  was  established. 
Then  it  was  withdrawn.  Since  the  rise  of  popery 
there  has  been  no  miracle  wrought.  The  nearest 
approach  to  one,  that  I  now  remember,  for  fourteen 
hundred  years,  is  the  fact  that  your  church  could 
gain  such  a  general  credence  for  its  absurdities,  and 
make  men  believe  that  she  could  work  miracles. 
]  You  must  give  up  your  lying  legends  and  your 
claim  to  miraculous  power,  before  I  can  return  to 
your  fold.  I  feel  as  did  our  fellow-countryman  with 
the  bad  asthma,  who  exclaimed,  "  If  once  I  can  get 
this  troublesome  breath  out  of  my  body,  I'll  take 
good  care  it  shall  never  get  in  again." 

With  great  respect,  yours, 

KrEWAN. 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  4S^ 


LETTER  V, 

Marks  of  the  Papal  being  the  true  Church  considered.    Unity- Sanctity- 
Catholicity — ApostoHcity — Infallibility. 

Rev.  and  dear  Sir, — In  the  present  letter,  I  wish 
to  place  before  you  another  of  my  reasons  for  not 
returning  to  the  church  of  my  fathers,  drawn  from 
the  exclusive  claims  of  your  church — claims  which, 
if  well-founded,  consign  to  eternal  damnation  all 
who  refuse  to  believe  its  doctrines,  or  to  submit  to 
its  authority.  That  these  claims  are  put  forth,  you 
will  not  deny.  You  glory  in  them.  Milner  and 
Butler  assert  them,  and  seek  to  sustain  them  by . 
Scripture  and  reason.  "  The  Poor  Man's  Cate- 
chism," from  which  I  like  to  quote,  because  it  is  the 
channel  through  which  you  seek  to  impress  the 
common  mind,  says,  "  those  who  submit  not  to  the 
doctrine  and  authority  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church, 
are  all  out  of  her  communion ;  as  pagans,  infidels, 
Turks,  Jews,  heretics  and  schismatics."  And  by 
the  Holy  Catholic  Church  is  meant,  that  church 
ivhose  head  is  the  pope.  This  is  sufficiently  expli- 
cit. So  that  in  your  estimation,  and  in  that  of  your 
church,  the  Protestant  churches  around  you  are  no 
better  than  Jewish  synagogues,  or  pagan  temples ; 
the  people  that  worship  in  them,  are  no  bt  tter  thaa 


44  kirwan's  letters 

Turks  or  pagans ;  and  such  men  as  the  late  excel- 
lent Milnor,  as  Spring,  Knox,  Bangs,  Williams, 
Wainright,  Skinner,  your  cotemporaries,  and  equals, 
and  fellow  citizens,  are  no  better  than  Hume,  Vol- 
taire, Gibbon ;  or  at  least,  than  Jewish  Rabbles, 
Turkish  Mufties,  or  Hindoo  Priests,  who  mingle 
their  blood  with  their  sacrifices.  That  such  is  your 
belief  is  apparent  in  your  conduct.  You  and  your 
priests  so  treat  them.  The  belief  of  your  people  is, 
that  all  beyond  the  pale  of  your  church  are  devoted 
to  destruction.  I  remember  the  day  when  I  had  no 
more  doubt  of  it  than  of  my  own  existence.  If  there 
are  papists  who  believe  otherwise,  and  who  exercise 
a  charitable  hope  as  to  the  salvation  of  Protestants, 
as  I  believe  there  are  many,  so  far  forth  they  are 
not  papists. 

The  process  by  which  you  reach  this  terrible  dog- 
ma is  a  very  short  one.  There  is  no  salvation  out 
of  the  true  church — the  Roman  Catholic  is  the  true 
church — therefore,  there  is  no  salvation  out  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  Here  is  your  logical 
and  theological  guillotine,  by  which  you  sever  the 
hopes  which  bind  millions  of  your  race  to  God  and 
heaven ;  who  serve  the  one,  and  deserve  the  other, 
at  least,  as  well  as  you  do.  And,  then,  the  marks 
of  yours  oeing  the  true  cnurch,  you  parade  before 
us  with  as  much  confidence  as  if  they  were  true ; 
and  with  as  much  assurance  as  if  they  were  never, 
instead  of  being  a  thousand  times,  refuted.     Permit 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  49 

me,  in  the  briefest  manner,  to  consider  each  of  thess 
marks.  They  are  Unity,  Sanctity,  Catholicity, 
Apostolicity,  and  Infallibility. 

Your  first  mark  is  Unity.  Has  your  church  this 
mark  ?  In  what  one  thing  are  you  united  1  Not  in 
the  head  of  the  church.  You  have  a  pope  ; — some 
say,  others  deny,  that  he  is  the  head.  One  goes  for 
the  pope, — another  for  a  general  council, — a  third 
for  both  united.  Is  this  unity  1  But  if  we  admit 
your  unity,  what  follows  ?  Does  the  agreement  of 
numbers  in  maintaining  error  and  superstition,  prove 
that  in  which  they  are  united  true  ?  Then  Pagan- 
ism, and  Mahometanism,  and  Budhism,  may  be 
proved  divine.  These  systems  have  more  followers 
than  you  can  boast. 

You  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  authoritative  coun- 
cils of  your  church.  You  are  yet  agitated  by  corv- 
troversies  on  the  subject.  Nor  are  you  agreed  in 
the  doctrines  of  the  Bible.  Never  were  Arminians 
and  Calvinists  more  widely  separated  on  these  mat- 
ters than  you  are.  Look  at  the  fierce  contentions 
of  your  Jansenists  and  Jesuits,  unsettled  to  the  pre- 
sent hour.  If  united,  what  meant  the  fierce  contro- 
versies of  your  Scotists  and  Thomists — of  your  Can- 
onists and  Schoolmen — of  your  Nominalists  and 
Realists.  But  I  cannot  weary  you  or  my  readers 
on  this  matter.  You  talk  about  the  differences 
among  Protestants  ; — they  are  not  to  be  compared  to 
those  among  papists.  You  put  into  my  hand  Bos- 
suet's  "  Variations  of  Protestants ;"  I  put  into  yours, 


46 

"  Edgar's  Variations  of  Poper3^"  Where  Protest" 
ants  difTer  in  one  point,  papists  differ  in  five, — where 
they  differ  in  minor  matters,  you  differ  in  the  veriest 
essentials.  Protestants  agree  as  to  the  Head  of  the 
church,  Christ ; — and  as  to  the  rule  of  the  church, 
the  Bible.     You  differ  as  to  both. 

True,  you  have  an  apparent  external  unity.  But 
how  have  you  gotten  it  ?  What  is  it  worth  ?  You 
set  up  monstrous  claims,  and  all  who  do  not  admit 
them  you  cast  off.  Milner's  "Apostolical  Tree," 
shows  how  the  work  of  lopping  off  has  progressed. 
You  have  laid  the  axe  upon  every  green  and  fruit- 
ful branch  ;  and  the  old  stump  and  withered  branch- 
es remain,  a  unity !  And  what  is  your  unity 
worth  ?  If  1  return  to  your  church,  "  I  must  be- 
lieve whatever  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  believes 
and  teaches."  This  I  must  do  without  knowing, 
and  without  ever  being  able  to  know,  all  that 
she  believes  and  teaches.  I  must  put  myself 
into  your  hands,  and  give  you  power  to  think  for 
me,  and  to  believe  for  me  ;  and  then  I  must  believe, 
and  swear  to,  what  you  thus  think  and  believe  for 
me,  at  the  peril  of  being  cut  off  and  cast  into  the 
fire.  Sir,  this  is  horrible  slavery.  Do  you  think 
men  will  long  submit  to  it  ? 

Your  boasted  unity  is  a  fable — your  apparent 
unity,  is  slavery.  You  present  a  united  front  in 
vour  opposition  to  Protestants ;  but  never  were  the 
bowels  of  the  victim  of  the  Asiatic  cholera  more  ter- 
ribly convulsed,  than  is  the  bosom  of  your  church 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  47 

by  distracting  controversies.  Your  priests  and 
bishops  and  people  may  fight  as  they  may,  but  they 
are  a  unity  as  long  as  they  remain  within  the  same 
©rganization.  If  one  of  them  secedes,  if  you  can- 
not kill  him,  you  damn  him,  for  the  sake  of  unity. 
Your  next  mark  is  Sanctity.  I  admit  that  sanc- 
tity, or  holiness,  is  a  mark  of  a  true  disciple,  and  of 
a  true  church.  The  people  and  church  of  Christ 
should  be  holy  in  all  manner  of  conversation. 
Sanctity  you  claim  for  your  church  as  one  of  its  dis- 
tino-uishino^  marks.  But  in  what  is  it  manifested  ? 
You  reply,  first,  in  her  doctrines.  But  what  doc- 
trine of  the  Bible  has  not  your  church  corrupted  ? 
What  institution  has  it  not  perverted  ?  And  so  con- 
scious is  your  church  of  this,  that  it  withholds  the 
unadulterated  word  from  the  people.  You  reply, 
again,  in  the  means  of  holiness.  By  these  you  mean 
the  sacraments.  But  you  have  grievously  perverted 
the  only  two  sacraments  instituted  by  Christ ;  and 
you  have  added  to  them  five  which  have  no  divine 
authority,  and  whose  only  object  is  to  give  you  pow- 
er, and  to  obtain  for  you  "  the  alms  and  the  suffrages 
of  the  faithful."  You  reply  again,  in  her  fruits  of 
holiness.  By  these  you  mean  the  virtues  practised 
by  papists.  I  could  not,  for  a  moment,  deny  the 
true  piety  of  many  papists,  the  exalted  piety  of 
some ;  but  will  you,  Sir,  assert  that  the  piety  and 
virtues  of  your  people  are  so  much  more  resplen- 
dent than  those  of  any,  or  all  other  people,  as  to 
mark  yours  as  the  true  church  ?     If  so,  it  seems  to 


48  kirwan's  letters 

me  that  you  would  assert  that  Jupiter  surpasses  the 
moon,  and  the  moon  the  sun,  in  bi'ightncss.  The 
evidences  to  the  contrary  are  no  more  apparent  in 
the  one  case  than  in  the  other.  Look  at  the  mass 
of  your  clergy  in  the  sunniest  days  of  your  church, 
and  what  were  their  fruits  of  holiness  ?  Your  own 
historians  being  witnesses,  what  were  the  fruits  of 
your  nunneries,  your  monasteries,  your  monks,  and 
your  other  orders,  when  there  were  no  Protestants 
to  unveil  their  enormities  ?  What  are  now  the  fruits 
of  your  religion  in  the  states  of  South  America? 
Have  you  seen  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Thompson,  our 
late  minister  to  Mexico,  as  to  the  papal  clergy  of 
that  country  ?  As  to  the  fruits  of  holiness,  compare 
Spain,  Italy,  with  Scotland  or  New  England. 

But  I  will  not  proceed  with  the  comparison  farther 
than  to  ask  you  to  compare  the  Protestant  ministry 
of  New-York  with  the  papal — the  congregation  of 
St.  Patrick's  with  any  large  and  wealthy  Protestant 
congregation  in  the  city,  as  to  the  fruits  of  holiness, 
and  you  yourself  will  be  astonished  at  the  difference. 
The  general  rule  is,  that  purely  papal  countries  are 
those  most  debased  and  immoral,  and  purely  Prot- 
estant countries  are  those  most  enlightened,  and  most 
abounding  in  every  good  work.  The  tenth  century, 
the  noonday  of  popery,  was  the  midnight  of  our 
race.  Nor  does  the  history  of  the  world  present 
such  evidences  of  unbridled,  overgrown  depravity, 
as  does  the  history  of  your  church. 

Your  next  mark  is  Catholicity.    You  claim  this 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  49 

title  for  your  church  as  to  time,  persons,  and  places. 
As  to  time,  your  church  rose  upon  the  ruins  of  that 
founded  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  centuries 
after  their  death.  Tlie  peculiar  doctrines  and  cere- 
monies of  popery  are  derived  from  the  heathen,  and 
were  engrafted  on  Christianity.  Instead  of  your 
church,  as  you  claim,  being  identical  with  that  of 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  there  is  not  an  essential 
particular,  in  which  it  is  not  in  opposition  to  it.  I 
admit,  as  to  persons,  that  yours  is  a  very  numerous 
church ;  but  it  never  formed  a  third  part  of  Chris- 
tendom. Is  the  standard  of  truth  the  numbers  that 
profess  it  ?  Then  Christianity  was  a  lie  whilst  in 
the  minority ; — and  so  it  is  a  lie  yet,  because,  taking 
our  whole  race  together,  vastly  in  the  minority. 
So  I  admit,  as  to  places,  that  popery  is  very  widely 
diffused.  But  is  not  Protestantism  also  ?  Where 
has  a  papist  gained  foothold  where  there  is  not  a 
Protestant  ?  So  that  your  claim  to  this  mark  is  as 
absurd  as  it  is  groundless.  Your  catholicity  is  a 
vain  and  empty  boast.  There  is  a  Catholic  Church, 
but  it  is  not  yours. 

Your  next  mark  is  Apostolicity — that  is,  a  regular 
succession  from  the  Apostles  in  the  chair  of  St.  Pe- 
ter. Now,  Sir,  this  claim  is  put  forth  by  other 
churches  as  strongly  as  yours,  and  on  foundations 
even  stronger  than  yours.  I  now  refer  to  the  Ar- 
menian, Nestorian,  and  Syriac  churches,  which 
were  founded  before  the  Gospel  was  preached  at 
Rome.     It  is  beyond  the  power  of  man  to  establish 

& 


50  kirwan's  letters 

this  claim.  If  established,  must  wo  receive  as  a 
true  minister  every  man  coming  to  us  in  the  regular 
line,  whatever  be  his  doctrines  or  morals  ?  What 
is  the  test  of  apostolicity  ?  Is  it  succession,  or  doc- 
trines? Most  obviously  doctrines.  "If  there  come 
any  unto  you,  and  bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive  him 
not  into  your  house,  neither  bid  him  God  speed." 
Standing  upon  this  one  text,  I  would  turn  you  away 
from  my  door,  even  had  I  seen  the  hands  of  all  the 
apostles  upon  your  head,  unless  you  preached  their 
doctrines.  Why,  the  strong  language  of  Paul  would 
even  warrant  me  to  curse  you,  coming  to  me  with 
your  claim  of  succession,  without  apostolical  doctrme. 
Read  it : — "  But  though  we,  or  an  angel  from  hea- 
ven, preach  any  other  Gospel  unto  you,  than  that 
we  have  preached,  let  him  be  accursed."  Sir,  if  I 
try  your  succession  by  your  doctrine,  the  true  test  of 
succession,  I  could  soon  place  you  among  those  who 
said  they  were  apostles  and  were  not.  From  what 
Apostle,  save  Judas,  many  are  descended,  who  are 
ciying  out,  Apostolical  succession,  apostolical  suc- 
cession !  I  cannot  conceive. 

Your  next  mark  is  InfallihiJify.  Under  all  the 
circumstances  of  the  case,  this  claim  is  truly  ludi- 
crous.  Where  is  the  seat  of  infallibility  ?  Some 
say  it  resides  in  the  pope.  But  how  is  he  made  in- 
fallible ?  The  pope  dies  ;  an  election  for  a  new  one 
is  ordered.  He  is  to  be  elected  from  the  cardinals — 
all  fallible  men,  if  no  worse.  After  endless  intrigue, 
and  boundless  corruption,  and  numerous  ballotings, 


TO   BISHOP    HUGHES.  51 

the  lot  falls  upon  a  fallible  cardinal.  Will  5'-ou  tell 
me  how  such  an  election  makes  him  infallible  ?  But 
others  say,  that  the  pope  is  not  infallible,  and  that 
he  may  be  deposed  for  heresy.  So  that  here  you 
are  divided. 

Some  say  the  seat  of  infallibility  is  a  general 
council.  But  how  is  this  ?  Here  are  three  hun- 
dred fallible  men  assembled  in  general  council ; 
how  do  they  become  infallible  ?  Will  you  tell  me 
the  process  ?  How  do  finites  make  an  infinite  ? 
Heap  them  up  as  you  may,  are  they  not  a  heap  of 
finites  ?  And  crowd  together  as  many  fallible  men 
as  you  may,  are  they  any  thing  else  than  a  crowd 
of  fallibles  ?  But  by  what  chemical  or  alchemical 
process  can  you  deduce  the  infallible  from  the  fal- 
lible ? 

Nor  is  this  the  worst.  We  find  one  general 
council  denouncing  another — the  church  of  one 
age  contradicting  the  church  of  another.  The 
seat  of  infallibility  is  thus  undetermined  by  you ; 
whilst  the  proofs  of  your  church's  fallibility  fill 
the  world.  It  is  infallibly  certain  that  your  church 
is  fallible. 

Thus  is  your  church,  utterly  destitute  of  every 
mark  of  being  the  true  church,  which  you  claim  for 
it.  Its  unity  is  discord,  or  slavery — its  sanctity  is 
corruption — its  catholicity  is  assumption — its  aposto- 
licity  and  infallibility  each  a  lie.  Could  I  speak  of 
your  church  in  the  masculine  and  feminine  gender, 
as  do  some  of  your  writers,  instead  of  admitting  her 


52  kirwan's  letters 

to  be  the  one,  holy,  catholic,  apostolical,  and  infalli- 
ble church,  I  would  call  her  the  mother  of  harlots, 
and  the  father  of  lies ;  the  man  of  sin  fully  revealed^ 
with  "  powers,  and  signs,  and  lying  wonders." 

And  yet,  whilst  common  sense  rejects  your  claims, 
and  common  reason  disproves  them,  and  the  Bible 
denies  them,  unless  in  the  case  of  invincible  igno- 
rance, you  cut  off  all  beyond  your  pale  from  all 
communion  with  God — from  all  hope  of  heaven  !  I 
regard  this  as  simply  wicked.  To  gain  your  point, 
you  rob  the  Father  of  us  all  of  his  goodness  ;  man 
you  drive  to  despair,  and  you  convert  God  into  a 
tyrant.  If  a  boat  were  as  rotten  as  I  believe  your 
church  to  be,  I  would  not  trust  it  to  cany  me 
across  the  North  river.  And  yet  it  claims  the  entire 
monopoly  of  carrying  to  heaven  all  the  souls  that 
ever  enter  it,  and  for  no  reason,  human  or  divine, 
that  I  can  see,  unless  it  be  for  the  freight. 

My  Bible  tells  me,  Sir,  that  whosoever  believeth 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  shall  be  saved.  The  sin. 
cere  believers  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  whether  in 
your  church  or  other  churches,  or  in  no  church, 
form  a  part  of  that  church  which  Christ  will  present 
to  the  Father,  without  spot  or  wrinkle  or  any  such 
thing.  By  setting  up  its  claim  to  be  the  only  true 
church — by  den}  ing  salvation  to  all  but  your  own 
members,  with  the  exception  of  the  invincibly  igno- 
rant, you  deny  this  doctrine  of  the  Bible  and  of  my 
faith — you  lay  down  a  principle,  unsustained  by 
sense  or  Scripture,  from  which  the  mind  of  the  world 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  83 

revolts,  and  from  which  my  soul  turns  away,  as  from 
a  thing  the  most  offensive.     Your  exclusive  claims 
must  be  proved,  or  abandoned,  from  their  Alpha  to 
their  Omega,  before  I  can  return  to  your  church. 
With  great  respect,  yours, 

Kjewan. 


54  kirwan's  letters 


LETTER  VI. 

Relics — Relics  the  parent  of  miracles — Tlie  importance  of  relics — Specimem 
of  relics — The  abuses  of  relics — Indulgence — To  whom  and  by  whom 
granted — Their  fearful  effects 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir  : — Permit  me  to  ask  your 
kind  attention,  in  the  present  letter,  to  two  more  ob- 
jections which  prevent  my  return  to  your  church, 
drawn  from  your  use  of  relics  and  indulgences.  The 
importance  which  you  attach  to  these  things,  and  the 
evils  which  flow  from  them,  demand  a  letter  for  the 
due  consideration  of  each  ;  but  I  will  consider  them 
both  in  one,  and,  as  I  trust,  without  weakening  the 
force  of  my  objections. 

"  Relics  are  the  dead  bodies  or  bones  of  saints, 
and  whatever  helonged  to  them  in  their  mortal  life,'^ 
The  clause  I  place  in  italics  enables  you  to  multiply 
them  indefinitely.  These  relics  are  honored  with 
an  inferior  and  relative^  but  not  with  divine  honor. 
And  they  are  honored,  1st,  because  they  were  the 
temples  of  God  ;  2dly,  because  they  are  to  be  raised 
from  the  dead ;  3dly,  because  of  their  miraculous 
power ;  4thly,  because  they  encourage  the  faithful 
to  imitate  their  virtues.  This  is  Challoner's  account 
of  them,  with  which  that  of  Milner  agrees. 

This  doctrine  of  relics  is  intimately  connected 
with  that  of  miracles — it  flows  from  it.  The  man 
who  performed  miracles,  when  living,  should  be,  after 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES.  55 

death,  highly  honored  ;  his  bones  may  perform  them 
after  death ;  and,  as  in  many  cases  they  do  perform 
them,  their  relics  should  be  honored  with  an  infe- 
rior and  relative,  but  not  with  a  divine  honor.  Here 
is  the  link  which  connects  your  doctrine  of  relics 
with  your  miracles. 

Relics  are  matters  of  immense  importance  to 
Rome.  They  are  to  your  churches  what  the  ark  of 
the  covenant,  and  the  pot  of  manna,  and  Aaron's 
rod  that  budded,  were  to  the  Jewish  temple.  Hence 
the  prodigious  efforts  of  past  ages  to  obtain  relics, 
and  the  enormous  prices  paid  for  them,  in  order  to 
place  them  in  churches,  and  the  sleepless  vigilance 
with  which  they  have  been  guarded,  lest  they  should 
be  stolen  for  the  adorning  of  new  churches  by  their 
virtues.  They  have  been  more  than  mines  of  wealth 
to  Holy  Mother,  as  they  have  brought  her  the  gold 
and  the  silver,  without  the  trouble  of  mining,  smelt- 
ing, or  coining  it. 

If  a  bone  or  a  relic  of  a  saint  could  be  secured  for 
a  new  church,  the  church  was  called  by  his  name, 
and  placed  under  his  guardianship.  This  is  the  ori- 
gin of  calling  churches  after  the  names  of  saints. 
And  thus  nations  were  placed  under  the  guardian- 
ship of  saints — as  Ireland  under  that  of  St.  Patrick — 
Scotland  under  that  of  St.  Andrew — England  under 
that  of  St.  George.  So  also  cities  were  placed  un- 
der the  care  of  saints,  and  their  relics  were  esteem- 
ed as  imparting  far  greater  security  against  assault 
than  cannon,  walls,  or  bulwarks.     Constantiue,  you 


56 

know,  defended  the  town  of  Nisibis  with  the  dead 
body  of  St.  James ;  and  when  the  Emperor  Leo  de- 
sired to  secure  the  relics  of  Simon  the  Sty  lite  from 
Antioch,  for  the  purposes  of  defence,  the  prudent 
citizens  replied,  "  Our  city  has  no  walls,  and  we 
have  brought  here  the  holy  body  of  Simon,  that  it 
might  serve  us  in  the  stead  of  walls  and  bulwarks." 
And  so  individuals  are  placed  under  a  guardian 
saint,  or  they  select  one  for  themselves.  I  remem- 
ber, when  a  boy,  I  had  one  myself;  but  his  name  I 
am  utterly  unable  to  recall.  I  have  no  doubt  but 
that  you  will  say  he  took  bad  care  of  me. 

There  is,  I  learn,  an  authentic  list  of  the  relics, 
deemed  true,  possessed  and  published  by  your 
church.  I  have  never  seen  it.  It  must  be  a  very 
curious  book.  In  the  absence  of  your  catalogue,  I 
select  a  few  of  the  relics  greatly  venerated  by  pa- 
pists, from  books  of  authority  that  lie  before  me. 
They  are  almost  as  amusing  as  your  miracles.  I 
will  omit  those  too  offensive  to  be  named,  out  of  re- 
spect for  you,  my  readers,  and  myself.  ; 

The  arms,  legs,  fingers,  toes  of  the  saints  are 
greatly  multiplied.  There  are  eight  arms  of  St. 
Matthew,  three  of  St.  John,  and  almost  any  number 
of  St.  Thomas  a-Becket.  There  are  in  the  Church 
of  Lateran,  the  ark  made  by  Moses  in  the  wilder- 
ness, the  rod  of  Moses,  and  the  table  on  which  the 
last  supper  was  instituted  by  the  Saviour.  The  ta- 
ble is  entirely  at  Rome  ;  but  there  are  many  pieces 
of  it  in  other  places.     On  the  altar  of  the  Lateran, 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  57 

are  the  heads  of  Peter  and  Paul  entire  ;  but  there 
are  pieces  of  them  in  Bilboa,  greatly  honored  by  the 
monks.  St.  Peter's  Church  is  blessed  with  the  cross 
of  the  penitent  thief;  with  the  lantern  of  Judas ; 
with  the  dice  used  by  the  soldiers  in  casting  lots  for 
the  Saviour's  garments ;  with  the  tail  of  Balaam's 
ass  ;  and  with  the  axe,  saw,  and  hammer  of  St.  Jo- 
seph. Different  churches  are  enriched  with  pieces 
of  the  wood  of  the  cross ;  and  wei'e  the  pieces  ail 
brought  together,  they  would  make  a  hundred  cross- 
es. In  one  church  is  some  of  the  manna  in  the  wil- 
derness ;  in  another  some  blossoms  from  Aaron's 
rod ;  in  another  an  arm  of  St.  Simon ;  in  another 
the  picture  of  the  Virgin,  painted  by  Luke — in  an- 
other one  of  her  combs ;  in  another  the  combs  of  the 
apostles,  but  little  used ;  in  another  a  part  of  the 
body  of  St.  Lazarus,  that  smells ;  in  another  a  part 
of  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  in  his  own  handwriting  ;  in 
another  a  finger  of  St.  Ann,  the  Virgin's  sister ;  in 
another  St.  Patrick's  stick,  with  which  he  drove 
venomous  reptiles  from  Ireland  ;  in  another  some  of 
St.  Joseph's  breath,  caught  by  an  angel  in  a  vial ; 
in  another  a  piece  of  the  rope  with  which  Judas  hung 
himself;  in  another  some  of  the  Virgin's  hair — in 
another  some  of  her  milk.  And  the  monks  once 
showed  among  their  relics  the  spear  and  shield  with 
which  iMichael  encountered  the  dragon  of  Revela- 
tion ;  and  some  relic-monger  had  a  feather  from  the 
wing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  when  taking  the  form  of  a 
dove  he  abode  upon  Christ  at  his  baptism !     On  the 


58  kirivan's  letters 

miracles  wrouglit  by  the  relics  of  the  saints  I  have 
already  sufliciontly  dwelt.  They  are  various,  and 
very  numerous. 

I  will  not,  I  cannot,  here  dwell  upon  the  awful 
abuses  of  your  doctrine  of  relics  ;  on  the  robbery  of 
all  kinds  of  graves  in  Palestine,  and  the  hawking  of  i 
pilfered  bones  all  over  Europe ;  on  the  selling  of 
old  wood,  sufficient  to  warm  a  small  town  through 
the  winter,  as  pieces  of  the  cross ;  on  the  selling  of 
hands  and  feet  of  particular  saints,  until  the  proof  is 
positive  that  some  of  the  favored  ones  had  as  many 
hands  as  Briareus,  and  as  many  feet  as  the  crawling 
worm  we  call  the  centipede.  I  turn  from  the  abuse 
to  the  doctrine. 

Now,  Sir,  where  is  the  origin  of  your  doctrine  of 
relics  ?  Can  you  find  a  trace  of  it  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament ?  Will  you,  for  a  moment,  compare  the  sham 
miracles  wrought  at  the  tombs  of  some  of  your  saints 
with  that  wrought  by  the  bones  of  a  prophet  of  Is- 
rael ?  Will  you  dare  to  say  that  the  curing  of  a 
sore  throat,  by  a  dead  man's  hand,  is  to  be  placed  on 
the  same  ground  with  the  miraculous  cures  of  the 
apostles  ?  I  venerate  the  names,  I  would  even  de- 
corate the  tombs  of  the  good ;  but  what  virtue  is 
there  in  a  bone  from  the  body  of  Paul  or  Peter  ?  or 
in  a  slip  of  wood  from  the  cross  ?  or  in  a  strand 
from  the  rope  with  which  Judas  hung  himself?  or  in 
eome  haiis  from  the  tail  of  the  beast  which  Balaam 
whipped. 

If  relics  ever  performed  miracles,  why  do  they 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  59 

not  perform  some  now  ?  Is  the  virtue  of  all  your 
old  bones  exhausted  ?  Where  is  the  holy  coat  of 
Treves  ?  Where  now  are  the  pilgrims  to  the  bones 
of  Becket  ?  Where  is  your  shop  in  New- York  for 
the  sale  of  holy  teeth,  and  holy  fingers,  and  holy 
bones,  taken  from  the  graves  of  the  saints  ?  Sir,  the 
whole  matter  is  one  of  the  vilest  impositions  ever 
practised  upon  the  credulity  of  man.  I  do  not  charge 
you  with  believing  a  word  of  it.  I  could  almost  as 
soon  believe  in  the  virtue  of  the  paring  of  the  toe- 
nails of  some  of  your  saints,  as  admit  that  a  man  of 
your  high  sense  can  believe  in  these  things. 

But  I  must  hasten  to  a  brief  consideration  of  your 
doctrine  of  indulgence.  And  how  shall  I  character- 
ize it  ? 

Your  church  teaches  that  sins  of  a  certain  char- 
acter deserve  temporal  and  eternal  punishment. 
Penance  secures  the  remission  of  the  latter ;  indul- 
gence releases  from  the  former.  So  that  indulgences 
secure  a  release  from  the  debt  of  temporal  punish- 
ment. 

No  person  but  a  lineal  descendant  of  St.  Peter  can 
grant  an  indulgence.  And  that  all  such  have  the 
power  of  granting  them,  is  clearly  proved,  by  the 
fact  that  the  Saviour  gave  the  keys  to  Peter,  and  told 
Iiim  that  whatsoever  he  bound  or  loosed  on  earth 
should  be  bound  or  loosed  in  heaven. 

Indulgences  can  be  only  granted  to  those  who 
have,  by  penance,  secured  the  remission  of  eternal 
.punishment ;  and  they  can  be  granted  even  to  such 


60  kirwan's  letters 

only  for  a  good  cause  or  motive.  Unless  the  cause 
or  motive  is  a  good  one,  heaven  does  not  loose  what 
the  bishop  looses.  The  causes  or  motives  deemed 
good  are,  "  the  doing  of  great  works  for  the  glory  of 
God  and  the  public  benefit  of  the  church,  such  as  the 
propagation  of  the  catholic  faith,  building  churches, 
alms,  &c."  And  the  way  in  which  the  bishop  se- 
cures the  remission  of  the  temporal  punishment  of 
the  indulged  one, — he  draws  upon  the  satisfaction  of 
Christ  and  his  saints,  called  "  the  treasure  of  the 
church,'"'  and  offers  the  draft  to  God,  as  an  equiva- 
lent for  the  punishment  due  to  the  individual !  I  do 
think  that  some  heated  controversialists  have  distort- 
ed this  doctrine  of  your  church ;  but  you  will  not 
say  that  this  is  a  distortion  of  it.  It  is  taken,  almost 
literally,  from  Challoner  and  Milner. 

The  illustration  of  Milner,  of  the  working  of  the 
thing,  is  a  curiosity  in  its  way.  It  is  drawn  from 
2  Sam.,  12th  chapter.  David,  by  the  murder  of 
Uriah,  and  by  adultery  with  his  wife,  incurred  both 
eternal  and  temporal  punishment.  He  confessed  to 
Nathan  and  did  penance,  and  eternal  punishment 
was  remitted.  The  temporal  3'et  remained,  and  he 
suffered  it  all.  And  why  ?  There  was  no  priest 
or  bishop  to  grant  him  indulgence  ! 

Such,  Sir,  is  your  doctrine  of  indulgence.  Per- 
mit me  to  give  you  my  thoughts  in  reference  to  it. 

There  is  not  a  shadow  of  authority  for  it  in  the 
Scriptures.  The  church  has  authority  to  receive 
.hose  she  deems  worthy  of  membership,  and  to  cast 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  61 

out  offenders.  And  when  offenders,  cast  out  from 
her  bosom,  have  given  due  evidence  of  repentance, 
she  has  the  power  of  again  receiving  them ;  she  is 
bound  to  do  so.  Upon  this  simple  scriptural  posi- 
tion your  church  has  erected  the  sacrament  of  pen- 
ance, and  the  doctrine  of  indulgence  ! 

Nor  have  you  a  shadow  of  authority  for  prescrib- 
ing a  meritorious  satisfaction  to  God,  in  lieu  of  the 
penalty  annexed  to  his  law,  and  pronounced  against 
sin.  I  have  already  examined  and  exploded  your 
claims  as  to  the  power  of  the  keys,  and  as  to  binding 
and  loosing.  So  unreasonable,  I  may  say,  so  foolish 
are  they,  that  their  assertion  only  exposes  you  to 
ridicule.  Let  us  suppose  that  David  were  now  king 
of  the  State  of  New- York,  with  the  sins  of  the  mat- 
ter of  Uriah  fresh  upon  him :  could  you  go  to  him 
and  say,  "  May  it  please  your  majesty,  I  John 
Hughes,  by  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  trans- 
ferred to  me  by  Peter,  will  grant  you  indulgence 
from  the  temporal  punishment  due  to  your  sins ;  and 
that  child  born  to  you  by  the  wife  of  Uriah  shall  live, 
by  virtue  of  my  indulgence,  if  you  only  build  for  me 
a  splendid  cruciform  church,  and  endow  it  with  re- 
gal magnificence  ?  "  Should  yuu  do  this,  would  not 
your  conduct  be  branded,  not  only  as  revoltingly  ar- 
rogant, but  as  blasphemous  ?  And  is  not  this  the 
way  that  many  of  your  churches  were  built  and 
endowed  ? 

But  you  now  lower  your  tone,  and  say,  that  indul- 
gences only  remit  the  temporal  punishment  inflicted 

6 


62  kirwan's  letters 

by  the  church.  But  how  does  this  mend  the  matter  ? 
By  your  poM'er  of  binding  or  loosing,  you  can  send 
a  man  to  hell  or  to  heaven  ;  you  can  inflict  any  pun- 
ishment you  see  fit ;  and  you  can  demand  of  the  pen- 
itent, for  indulgence,  any  "good  works"  you  see 
fit.  Here,  sir,  i«  the  key  which  unlocks  a  chamber 
in  your  church  filled  with  rottenness  and  putrefac- 
tion, more  foul  and  filthy  than  the  world  has  ever 
seen.  Need  I  revert  to  the  traffic  in  indulgences  so 
jealously  promoted  by  your  popes  in  past  days  ? 
Need  I  point  you  to  their  wholesale  manufacture  by 
your  popes — to  their  selling  them  by  wholesale  to 
tribes  of  vagabond  monks,  who  hawked  them  all  over 
Europe  at  prices  to  suit  purchasers  ?  The  pope  drove 
as  good  a  bargain  as  he  could  with  the  monks,  and 
the  monks  with  the  people.  For  the  indulgence 
which  a  poor  peasant  could  purchase  for  a  few  pen- 
nies, a  prince  must  pay  pounds.  The  common  sense 
of  the  world  was  insulted ;  the  yoke  of  Rome  became 
too  heavy  for  the  nations  longer  to  bear ;  a  poor 
monk  discovered  a  copy  of  the  Bible,  and  its  truths 
filled  his  mind  and  his  soul ;  strong  in  the  Lord,  he 
went  out  from  his  dark  cell  with  the  lamp  of  life  in 
his  hand;  the  Reformation  follows.  And  for  the 
exposure  of  her  frauds  and  wickedness,  your  church 
has  sent  that  poor  monk  to  a  place  where  the  effi- 
cacy of  seven  sacraments — of  all  masses— of  all  in- 
dulgences—can never  reach  him. 

But  you  will  say  all  this  was  the  abuse  of  the 
thing.   My  dear  Sir,  your  doctrines  of  relics  and  in- 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  63 

dulgences  have  no  use — they  are  all  abuse.  Guard 
them  as  you  may  in  your  Catechisms  and  books, 
practically  they  are  all  abuse.  Millions  have  prayed 
at  the  tombs  of  your  saints,  who  never  offered  an  in- 
telligent prayer  to  God  through  his  Son.  Millions 
have  worshipped  your  relics,  who  never  worshipped 
God  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  And  millions  have  sought 
deliverance  from  sin  by  your  penances,  and  extreme 
unctions,  and  indulgences,  who  never  sought  it 
through  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ.  And  at  this  hour 
many  of  your  churches  in  Rome  are  nothing  but  spi- 
ritual shops  for  the  sale  of  indulgences. 

The  frauds  which  j'our  church  has  practised  on 
the  world,  by  her  relics  and  indulgences  are  enor- 
mous. If  practised  by  the  merchants  of  New- York, 
in  their  commercial  transactions,  they  would  send 
every  man  of  them  to  State  Prison. 

By  your  doctrine  of  relics  you  lead  the  people  into 
idolatry  on  the  one  hand — by  your  doctrine  of  indul- 
gence you  give  them  a  license  to  commit  sin  on  the 
other.  At  least  this  is  their  practical  effect.  It  is 
said  of  the  holy  Sturme,  the  disciple  of  St.  Wmfrid, 
that  in  passing  a  horde  of  unconverted  Germans,  as 
they  were  bathing  in  a  stream,  he  was  so  overpow- 
ered by  the  intolerable  stench  of  sin  that  arose  from 
them,  he  nearly  fainted  away.  Similar  is  the  effect 
of  the  odor  of  your  relics  and  indulgences  upon  me. 
Your  church  must  abandon  them  utterly  before  I 
can  return  to  her  communion. 

With  great  respect,  yours, 

KiRWAN. 


64  kirwan's  letters 


LETTER  VII. 

Unmeaningness  of  Romish  Doctrines  and  Ceremonies  . — Baptism — The 
Mass — Penance — Extreme  Unction — Holy  Water — Prayers  to  the  SainU 
—Withholding  the  Scrijitures. 

Rev.  and  dear  Sir  : — I  ask  your  attention  in  the 
present  letter,  to  the  consideration  of  another  objec- 
tion, which,  mountain-like,  opposes  my  return  to 
your  church,  drawn  from  the  utter  unmeaningness 
of  your  j)eculiar  doctrines  and  ceremonies.  If  I  coin 
a  new  word  to  express  my  meaning,  surely  you  will 
forgive  me,  a  bishop  in  a  church  which  has  coined 
doctrines,  and  sacraments,  and  ceremonies,  without 
meaning,  and  without  end. 

When  I  look  into  the  New  Testament,  every  thing 
there  is  plain  and  simple.  True,  there  are  some 
doctrines  there  taught,  which  are  above  my  entire 
comprehension ;  but  yet  they  are  plainly  taught. 
Having  settled  the  divine  authority  of  the  Scriptures, 
I  never  question  what  they  plainly  teach.  Its  most 
mysterious  truths  are  not  opposed  to  my  reason; 
they  are  only  above  it.  When  I  look  at  the  wor- 
ship,  and  ceremonies  there  enjoined,  they  all  seem 
to  me  perfectly  simple  and  expressive.  And  so  are 
the  worship  and  ceremonies  of  almost  all  the  Prot- 
estant churches  with  which  I  am  acquainted.  So 
far  as  they  deviate  from  simplicity  and  expressive- 
aess,  do  they  deviate  from  the  apostolical  model. 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  65 

Bat  when  I  turn  to  your  church — the  church  of  my 
fathers, — every  thing  peculiar  to  it  wears  a  contrary 
aspect,  and  to  my  mind  seems  utterly  unmeaning, 
and  frequently  absurd.  Permit  me  to  illustrate  what 
I  mean.  And  even  should  I  occupy  this  letter  with 
my  illustrations,  my  only  excuse  to  you  and  my  read- 
ers is,  the  importance  of  the  subject. 
1  I  begin  with  your  sacrament  of  Baptism.  This 
we  all  admit  to  be  a  sacrament ;  but  I  have  now  to 
do  with  the  power  and  significancy  which  you  give 
It,  and  the  ceremonies  you  connect  with  it. 

The  effects  of  baptism  when  duly  administered,  as 
stated  by  Challoner,  are  these : — It  washes  away 
original  sin — it  remits  all  actual  sin — it  infuses  the 
habit  of  divine  grace  into  the  soul — it  gives  a  right 
and  title  to  heaven — it  makes  us  children  and  mem- 
bers of  the  church.  Now.  Sir,  I  have  no  sense  by 
which  I  can  perceive  how  the  application  of  water 
by  a  priest,  or  a  minister,  or  a  laic,  or  a  midwife, 
can  accomplish  all  this,  whilst  testimony  to  the  con- 
trary addresses  itself  to  all  my  senses.  Christ  died 
for  the  sins  of  all  that  believe  in  him — it  is  faith  in 
Clirist  that  secures  the  washing  away  of  original  and 
actual  sin — and  faith  is  the  exercise  of  a  heart  re- 
newed by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Being  justified  by  faith, 
we  have  peace  with  God  and  a  title  to  heaven.  All 
this  I  can  understand ;  but  how  your  dipping  three 
times  in  water  can  do  all  this,  I  see  not.  What  the 
Bible  attributes  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  to  the  exercise 
of  true  faith,  you  claim  for  the  sacrament  of  baptism 

6* 


66  kirwan's  letters 

If  your  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  is  true, 
what  a  singular  commentary  we  have  of  it  in  the 
lives  of  your  people  !  What  singular  manifestations 
of  the  habits  of  divine  grace  which  your  baptism  in- 
fuses into  the  soul,  you  see  daily  among  your  peo- 
ple !  I  only  wonder  that  the  facts  in  the  case  have 
not  long  since  exploded  your  doctrine,  and  led  you 
back  to  the  simplicity  of  the  sacrament  as  taught  in 
the  Bible !  The  apostles  administered  baptism  to 
those  who  confessed  faith  in  Jesus  Christ ;  and 
tlirough  this  sacrament  we  obtain  a  place  and  a 
name  in  the  visible  church.  This  all  men  can  un- 
derstand ;  but  how  you,  or  any  mortal  man,  by  the 
application  of  water  in  any  or  all  ways,  can  wash 
away  the  original  and  actual  sins  of  the  sinner, — 
infuse  into  his  soul  the  habits  of  grace,  and  give  him 
a  title  to  heaven,  I  cannot  comprehend.  If  your 
baptism  could  only  do  this,  it  would  wonderfully 
mend  the  habits  of  many  of  your  people,  and  save 
some  of  the  criminal  courts  of  New-York  a  world 
of  trouble ! 

And  the  i)ower  you  claim  for  it  is  no  more  un- 
meaning than  the  ceremonies  you  connect  with  it. 
This  sacrament,  ordinarily,  must  be  administered  in 
churches  with  fonts,  whose  water  must  be  blessed 
"  on  the  vigils  of  Easter  and  Whitsunday."  There 
must  be  godfathers  and  godmothers.  The  priest 
blows  in  the  face  of  the  subject  of  baptism  thrice,  to 
drive  Satan  out  of  him  !  Then  blessed  salt  is  put 
in  his  mouth !     Then  exorcism  is  performed  to  drive 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  67 

the  devil  out  of  him  !  T'lis  is  all  done  in  the  porch 
of  the  church.  Then  he  is  introduced  into  the 
church,  where  prayers  are  said.  Then  the  priest 
puts  his  spittle  on  his  ears  and  nose.  Then  he  is 
anointed  with  holy  oil,  "  blessed  on  Maunday-Thurs- 
day."  And  then  he  is  baptized.  Then  he  is 
anointed  on  the  top  of  the  head  with  holy  chrism. 
Then  a  white  linen  cloth  is  placed  on  his  head. 
Then  a  lighted  candle  is  put  in  his  hand !  Then 
the  ceremony  is  ended,  and  the  person  is  dismissed, 
his  sins  all  washed  away — the  habits  of  grace  in- 
fused into  his  soul,  and  his  title  to  heaven  in  his 
pocket ! 

Now,  sir,  excite  my  wits  as  I  may,  I  cannot  un- 
derstand all  this.     It  is  addressed  to  my  ignorance. 

The  whole  ceremony  of  your  3Iass  is  yet  more 
unmeaning  to  me.  Often  as  I  have  witnessed  it,  I 
never  gleaned  one  intelligent  idea  from  it — nor  does 
one  out  of  one  million  of  your  people.  I  have  just 
read  through  the  laboured  explanation  of  it  by  Bishop 
England ;  and  it  is  truly  painful  to  see  so  noble  a 
mind  expending  its  powers  in  the  vain  attempt  to 
give  meaning  to  every  thread  of  such  a  gossamer 
web  ; — to  give  sense  and  significance  to  what  is  so 
utterly  nonsensical. 

"  In  the  Mass,"  says  Dr.  England,  "  Christ  is  the 
victim ;  he  is  produced  by  the  consecration,  which, 
by  the  power  of  God,  and  the  institution  of  the  Re- 
deemer, and  the  act  of  the  priest,  place  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  under  the  appearance  of  bread  and 


68  kirwan's  letters 

wine,  upon  the  altar ;  then  the  priest  makes  an  ob- 
lation of  this  Victim  to  the  Eternal  Father  on  behalf 
of  the  people,  and  the  victim  undergoes  a  destructive 
change,  showing  forth  the  death  of  the  Redeemer, 
and  making  commemoration  thereof,  by  the  exhibi- 
tion of  the  apparent  separation  of  the  body  from  the 
blood ;  the  former  being  under  the  appearance  of 
bread,  and  the  latter  under  the  appearance  of  wine, 
and  by  the  consumption  of  both  by  the  priest."  This 
is,  on  the  whole,  the  clearest  account  of  the  mass  that 
I  have  ever  seen  from  the  pen  of  a  priest ;  and  yet  what 
mind  can  understand  it  ?  Sir,  do  you  understand 
it  ?  Christ  produced  from  some  bread  and  wine 
by  a  priest — this  produced  Christ  is  laid  upon  the 
altar  by  the  priest — an  oblation  of  this  produced 
Christ  is  made  to  the  Eternal  Father  by  the  priest — 
the  produced  Christ  undergoes  a  destructive  change 
in  the  act  of  oblation — this  oblation  of  the  produced 
Christ  is  offered  for  the  people — and  then  this  pro- 
duced, offered  Christ,  and  after  he  has  undergone  a 
destructive  change,  is  eaten  by  the  priest !  Sir,  all 
this  is  as  umeaning  to  me  as  i>ie  leaves  which  the 
fabled  sybil  scattered  on  the  winds.  And  this  un- 
meaning Mass,  a  greater  mass  of  absurdity  than  ever 
heathen  ingenuity  or  depravity  invented,  is  the  chief 
source  of  edification  to  the  nine-tenths  of  the  papal  ^ 
world  !  If  it  were  merely  unmeaning,  without  be- 
ing blasphemous  and  wicked,  I  could  extend  to  it 
some  toleration. 

And  the  absurdity  of  the  whole  thing  is  increased 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  G9 

to  intensity  by  the  fact  that  the  pantomime  is  per. 
fbroied  in  Latin  !  Pray,  Sir,  how  many  of  your 
worshippers  at  St.  Patriclv's  understand  English,  not. 
to  say  Latin  ?  Why  use  a  language,  now  no  longer 
spoken  by  any  nation  or  people,  which  is  now  sim- 
ply a  medium  of  intercourse  among  scholars  ?  The 
answer  given  to  this  question  by  Challoner,  is  one 
of  the  most  cool  insults  that  I  have  ever  known  of- 
fered to  the  common  sense  of  the  world.  Here  it 
is : — 1.  Because  it  is  her  ancient  language  .  .  .  and 
the  church,  which  hates  novelty,  desires  to  celebrate 
her  liturgy  in  the  same  language  ; — 2.  For  a  great- 
er uniformity  in  public  worship ;  that  a  papist, 
wherever  he  wanders,  may  witness  the  ceremonies 
of  the  mass  in  the  same  language  ; — 3.  To  avoid 
the  changes  to  which  all  vulgar  languages  are  ex- 
posed. He  also  tells  us  that  it  is  unnecessary  to 
understand  what  we  are  saying,  if  our  hearts  are 
only  sincere  !  Sir,  I  see  not  how  men  who  offer,  or 
receive  such  statements  as  reasons,  can  have  the 
faculty  of  understanding  a  reason.  Because  the 
ritual  of  the  Mass  was  first  formed  in  Latin ;  be- 
cause Mass  was  first  said  in  Latin  at  Rome,  the  ha- 
tred of  your  church  to  novelty  forbids  her  to  change 
the  lan2;uafre  of  her  ritual,  when  there  is  not  a  con- 
gregation  on  earth  that  can  understand  it !  And  it 
'  is  not  necessary  to  understand  the  language  in  which 
we  address  ourselves  to  God,  if  we  only  intend  to 
worship  him  !  And  such  is  the  excuse  you  make 
for  the  man  who  may  be  worshipping  a  false  relic 


70  kirwan's  letters 

for  a  true  one.  If  he  only  means  to  honour  the  true 
relic,  it  makes  no  difference !  If  he  mistakes  the 
thigh  of  Barabbas  fcr  that  of  Barnabas ;  or  the  finger 
of  Pilate  for  that  of  Peter ;  or  the  hair  rf  Jezebel 
for  that  of  Mary ;  or  the  head  of  Ba'aanr  s  ass  for 
that  of  Paul,  it  is  all  the  same,  if  he  only  means  to 
worship  the  true  relic !  And  I  suppose  the  differ- 
ence. Sir,  is  very  little. 

These  things  may  be  very  clear  to  you  and  to 
your  priests,  and  people  ;  but  to  me  they  are  utterly 
without  meaning,  save  a  meaning  that  insults  my 
common  sense. 

And  such  is  the  fact  as  to  your  doctrine  of  Pen- 
ance, and  Extreme  Unction,  which  I  have  already 
examined.  I  am  a  sinner.  To  obtain  forgiveness, 
you  tell  me  that  I  must  confess  to  you — that  I  must 
perform  the  penances  you  enjoin — that  I  must  secure 
absolution  from  you — and  that  until  all  this  is  done, 
I  cannot  procure  forgiveness.  Now  I  cannot  un- 
derstand how  this  process  secures  for  me  what  I  de- 
sire. I  readily  understand  how,  if  I  confess  my  sins 
to  God,  and  forsake  them,  and  rest  with  true  faith 
on  his  Son,  I  can  obtain  forgiveness.  But  your 
doctrine  of  penance,  and  its  reputed  efficacy,  are  as 
difficult  for  me  to  understand  as  they  are  contrary 
to  the  Bible. 

And  so  as  to  your  Extreme  Unction.  I  am  in  a 
dying  state.  The  sands  in  my  glass  are  almost  run. 
You  come  to  my  dying  bed  with  your  little  cup  of 
olive  oil,  blessed  on  Maunday-Thursday.     Dipping 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  7l 

your  thumb  in  the  box,  you  cross  and  anoint  my 
eyes,  my  nose,  m.y  tongue,  my  ears,  my  hands,  my 
feet,  and  when  the  crossing  and  anointing  is  over,  I 
am  prepared  for  "  the  port  of  eternal  happiness. '* 
Now,  Sir,  after  every  effort,  I  cannot  understand 
how  olive  oil  produces  those  effects,  if  rubbed  on 
with  both  your  thumbs,  and  with  all  your  fingers. 
1  can  readily  see  how  the  blood  of  Christ  applied  to 
my  soul  in  the  dying  hour  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  fits  it 
for  its  departure ;  but  how  olive  oil,  or  any  other 
oil,  rubbed  on  by  your  thumb,  or  poured  upon  me 
in  a  deluge,  can  effect  this,  is  a  mystery  utterly  be- 
yond my  power  of  solving. 

And  to  whichspever  of  your  peculiar  doctrines 
or  ceremonies  I  turn,  I  find  the  same  unmeanins:- 
ness  in  them  all. 

I  go  into  your  church,  St.  Patrick's.  I  go  with 
the  multitude  to  the  stone  basin  containing  the  holy 
water,  and  dipping  my  fingers  into  it,  I  cross  myself 
with  the  water.  This  water  is  made  holy  by  being 
exorcised  by  the  priest,  mixed  with  salt,  and  then 
prayed  over.  And  I  cross  myself  with  it  that  it 
may  defend  me  from  the  power  of  the  devil !  Now, 
Sir,  all  this  I  cannot  understand.  The  devil  is  cast 
out  of  the  water — then  the  water  is  salted — then  it 
is  consecrated — and  then  I  am  required  to  sprinkle 
myself  with  it  in  order  to  keep  off  the  devil.  I  can 
readily  see  how  salt  will  keep  the  water  from  be- 
coming putrid,  but  how  you  get  Satan  out  of  the  wa- 
ter, and  how  the  water  can  keep  Satan  away  from 


72 

me,  is  beyond  my  comprehension.  And  where  do 
you  get  this  rite  of  holy  water  ?  I  remember,  when 
a  boy,  seeing  the  priest  on  Sunday  passing  through 
a  densely  crowded  chapel,  with  two  boys  carrying 
a  tub  of  holy  water  before  him,  and  he  sprinkling  it 
upon  the  people  with  something  which  I  then  thought 
was  a  cow's  tail.  And  if  that  water  drove  the  devil 
out  of  some  of  them  that  I  well  remember,  I  would 
like  to  know  how  they  acted  when  he  was  in  them. 
If  holy  water  would  only  produce  the  effects  which 
you  attribute  to  it,  I  would  wish  you  to  give  many 
of  our  countrymen  a  pretty  thorough  sprinkling. 

I  find  the  same  difficulty  in  your  doctrine  which 
teaches  me  to  pray  to  the  Saints.  How  Paul  or  Pe- 
ter can  hear  me  in  New-York,  and  another  in  Cork, 
praying  to  them  at  the  same  time,  passes  my  com- 
prehension. I  am  sure  poor  Mary  must  have  her 
hands  full  if  she  attends  to  all  who  supplicate  her 
favor.  I  have  no  doubt  that,  in  the  papal  world, 
ten  pray  to  her,  where  one  prays  to  God. 

Nor  can  I  comprehend  why,  or  for  what  purpose, 
you  withhold  from  me  the  free  use  of  the  Scriptures. 
They  are  a  revelation  from  God  to  man — not  to 
priests  only,  but  to  the  race.  They  are  the  chart  of 
the  way  to  life,  and  all  men  are  commanded  to 
search  them.  Why  not  permit,  command  all  men 
to  search  them  ?  The  shipping  merchant  furnishes 
his  captains  with  charts  of  all  the  seas  over  which 
they  are  to  sail,  and  enjoins  a  constant  use  of  them ; 
and  you  take  from  me  the  chart  which  God  has  giv- 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  73 

en  me  to  direct  me  across  the  ocean  of  life,  and  to  a 
safe  anchorage  beneath  the  shelter  of  the  Rock  of 
Ages.     Why  is  this  ? 

My  dear  Sir,  God  has  given  me  a  mind  to  under- 
stand  his  will ;  and  in  revealing  his  will  to  me  he 
has  consulted  the  intelligence  with  which  he  has 
endowed  me.  He  asks  of  me  an  intelligent  service 
and  worship.  He  requires  all  men  to  worship  him 
in  spirit  and  in  truth. — Your  church  requires  me  to 
deny  the  testimony  of  my  senses — to  go  contrary  to 
the  decisions  of  my  reason — to  believe,  not  only 
without,  but  against,  evidence, — to  believe  in  doc- 
trines as  true,  which  common  reason  pronounces 
absurd,  and  to  submit  to  ceremonies  which  would 
seem  solemn  were  they  not  so  ludicrous  and  farci- 
cal. I  believe  it  is  Thomas  Aquinas,  who  proves 
the  duty  of  inferiors  to  submit  to  superiors  in  the 
church,  from  the  very  pertinent  passage  in  Job, 
"  the  oxen  were  ploughing  and  the  asses  feeding  be- 
side them."  And  whilst  I  have  no  objection  to  your 
bishops  and  priests  considering  themselves  oxen,  I 
prefer,  on  the  whole,  a  religion,  to  believe  and  prac- 
tice which,  does  not  require  me  to  be  turned  into  a 
donkey. 

With  great  respect,  yours, 

K1BW.IN. 
7 


74  kirv.'an's  letters 


LETTER  YIII. 

The  destiny  of  the  Papacy — Its  growth — lu  history  not  yet  written — The 
Keformation — Reasons  tor  the  extinction  of  popery — 1.  Incapable  of  re- 
formation— 2.  Its  reformation  impossible — 3.  Opposed  by  the  inteili 
gence  of  the  world — 4.  By  its  piety. — 5.  The  causes  which  gave  it  origin 
passing  away — 6.  Its  extinction  ordained — 7.  How  it  is  to  be  done. 

My  Dear  Sir  : — In  my  last  letter  I  brought  to  a 
close  the  chief  objections  which  prevent  my  return 
to  your  church.  As  they  bear,  at  least,  upon  my 
own  mind,  you  and  all  men  will  say  that  they  are 
insurmountable.  If  I  have  misstated  any  of  your 
doctrines — if  I  have  »iagnified  any  of  their  absurdi 
ties — I  have  done  it  ignorantly.  And  if  I  have  uttered 
a  sentence  that  could  have  been  avoided  in  tlie  discus- 
sion, and  that  can  be  interpreted  as  personally  offen- 
sive or  disrespectful  to  yourself,  I  regret  it.  I  feel 
proud  of  you  as  a  countryman ;  I  sincerely  respect 
your  character  ;  and  the  only  feeling  in  my  soul  in 
reference  to  you  is,  one  of  deep,  I  might  almost  say, 
agonizing  regret,  that  you  should  lend  your  talents, 
character,  and  influence  to  the  sustaining  of  such  a 
system  of  delusion  as  is  popery,  which  I  deem  equal- 
ly at  war  with  the  Bible  and  with  the  conmion  sense 
and  best  interests  of  men.  However  much  or  little 
value  you  place  on  this  avowal,  it  is  made  in  sincer- 
ity. In  the  present  letter,  which  will  close  those 
addressed  to  you  perspnally,  I  will  ask  your  attea- 


KIR  WAN's    LETTERS  75 

tion  to  some  considerations  hearing  on  the  uUlmaie 
destiny  of  your  church. 

The  growth  of  your  church  has  been  like  that  of 
the  mustard  seed — small  in  its  beginning,  but  grad- 
ually unfolding,  until  its  branches  overshadowed  the 
world.  It  took  centuries,  and  generations  of  men 
endowed  with  all  the  deceivableness  of  an  unright- 
eous policy,  to  perfect  its  despotic  unity.  Corrup- 
tion was  introduced  so  graduallv  as  to  create  no 
general  alarm.  And  the  truth  of  God  was  so  mixed 
up  with  the  traditions  of  men,  as  to  take  away  the 
power  of  the  truth,  and  as  to  I'ivet  upon  the  M'orld 
the  traditions  of  men  as  the  commandments  of  God  ; 
and  the  whole  system  was  so  adapted  to  the  tenden- 
cies of  our  fallen  nature,  as  to  gain  easy  access  for 
it  into  barbarous  and  semi-civilized  states.  From 
being  an  ally  of  the  state,  it  rose  to  the  government 
of  the  state.  It  put  out,  first,  the  lights  of  civil,  and 
then  of  religious  liberty.  By  it  kings  reigned,  and 
princes  decreed  judgment.  And  by  the  silent  and 
gradual  deposit  of  corruption  and  power,  your  church 
rose,  a  vast  form  and  complicated,  of  superstition-^ 
error,  and  tyranny,  shutting  out  the  light  of  heaven 
from  the  mind,  and  the  hope  of  heaven  from  the  soul, 
and  filling  the  world  with  the  gloom  and  terror  of  its 
despotism.  O,  Sir,  the  history  of  your  church,  from 
the  se\enth  to  the  seventeenth  century,  is  yet  un- 
written. Much  has  been  revealed,  but  the  one-half 
has  not  been  told  us.  Nor  will  man  ever  know,  un- 
til the  day  of  final  revealing,  a  tithe  of  the  miseries 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES. 

and  woes  which  it  has  inflicted  on  our  race.  When 
the  pall  of  darkness  which  now  conceals  them  will 
be  drawn  aside,  and  when  in  all  their  crimson  hues 
they  will  be  exposed  to  the  gaze  of  a  collected  uni- 
verse— when  the  martyrs  from  the  "  Alpine  Moun- 
tains cold  " — and  from  the  vales  of  Piedmont — and 
from  the  dungeons  of  the  Inquisitions — when  the  Hu- 
guenots of  France,  and  slaughtered  Protestants  of  the 
isles  and  the  continents  shall  all  rise  up  and  testify 
against  her,  where  can  popes,  prelates,  and  priests 
then  find  a  hiding  place  ?  The  rocks  and  mountains, 
disregarding  their  cries,  will  not  fall  upon  them,  nor 
hide  them  from  the  face  of  an  angry  God. 
>  The  world  bore  the  burden  of  the  despotism  of 
your  church  until  it  could  be  borne  no  longer.  The 
Reformation  ensued ;  and  because  God  was  in  it,  the 
combined  efforts  of  popes,  emperors,  kings,  and  pre- 
lates failed  to  arrest  it.  All  the  elements  of  super- 
stition, and  depravity,  and  selfishness,  and  cupidity, 
and  of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  power,  were  moved  to 
their  deep  foundations,  and  were  combined  with  un- 
sui'passed  skill  to  suppress  it,  but  in  vain.  The  na- 
tions broke  the  heavy  yoke  which  your  church  had 
placed  upon  their  necks,  and  indignantly  cast  it 
away.  And  from  that  day  until  this,  the  conflict 
has  continued  between  Protestantism  and  Popery — 
between  the  law  of  Christian  liberty  and  of  Papal 
thraldom — between  the  principles  of  an  open  Bible, 
and  the  free  access  of  the  soul  to  God  through  a  Me- 
diator, and  of  a  closed  Bible,  and  the  religion  of  sac- 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  77 

rarnents,  and  ceremonies,  and  priestly  interferences 
without  meaning,  measure,  or  end.  It  must  be  con- 
fessed, that  in  this  conflict  your  church  has  retained 
its  ground  with  great  art  and  skill,  and  that  after 
three  hundred  years  of  hard  fighting  it  yet  is  in  the 
field,  and  with  a  fearful  array.  But  what  is  her  des- 
tiny ?  Is  she  to  rise  again  to  her  former  power,  and 
to  tread  out  the  liberty  of  the  world,  and  to  send  us 
all  to  school  again  to  muttering  monks,  and  to  open 
hell  to  all  who  decline  her  authority,  and  to  admit  to 
heaven  only  those  whose  great  faith  or  great  igno- 
rance receives  all  that  she  teaches  ?  Sir,  I  have  no 
fear  of  this.  I  am  most  firmly  persuaded  that  your 
church  is  destined  to  total  extinction.  And  permit 
me,  in  the  briefest  manner,  to  state  to  you  a  few  of 
the  reasons  which  sustain  me  in  this  belief. 

1.  Your  church  is  incapable  of  reformation. 
What  may  be  reformed  may  be  preserved :  but  the 
diseased  body  that  allows  no  purgatives  to  remove 
its  fever,  and  no  stimulants  to  quicken  its  decaying 
organs,  must  die.  And  your  church  is  just  such  a 
body.  Because  infallible,  it  has  never  fallen  into 
error  in  doctrine  or  in  practice.  So  that  what  it  once 
believes  and  commands  is  always  true^  and  is  always 
binding.  Infallibility  forbids  reformation.  Here, 
then,  is  the  position  which  it  holds  before  the  world — 
an  infallible  church — its  sense  and  nonsense  equally 
true  and  important — and  because  infallible,  incapa- 
ble of  reformation  !  And,  in  my  opinion,  it  is  well 
it  is  so.  This  very  position  will  hasten  its  overthrow. 

7* 


78  KIKTVAN^S    LETTERS 

How  soon  were  the  waters  of  the  sea  made  the  wind- 
ing-sheet of  the  Pharaoh  that,  amid  the  wonders 
which  were  wrouglit  around  him,  refused  to  lessen 
the  burdens  of  Jacob  and  to  let  Israel  go  !  Old  Bax- 
ter was  in  the  habit  of  saying,  "  What  will  not  bend 
must  be  broken." 

2.  Even  if  the  doctrine  of  your  church  permitted 
reformation,  any  reformation  is  impossible,  save  that 
which  ends  in  its  extinction.  I  refer,  of  course,  to  a 
reformation  of  your  system,  and  not  to  that  of  indi- 
viduals. How  can  your  doctrine  as  to  the  pope's 
supremacy  be  reformed,  save  by  its  utter  abandon- 
ment  ?  How  reform  your  transubstantiation — your 
purgatory — your  penance — your  extreme  unction — 
your  praying  to  dead  men  and  women — your  relic 
worship  ?  No  reformation  of  these  things  is  possible. 
How  can  they  be  re-formed  1  If  they  cannot  be. 
they  must  be  abandoned  ;  and  if  abandoned,  where 
is  your  church  1  Gone,  like  the  fabric  of  a  vision, 
which  leaves  not  a  wreck  behind.  And  again,  I  say, 
it  is  well  that  it  is  so ;  these  things  will  hasten  its 
overthrow. 

3.  The  intelligence  of  the  world  is  in  opposition 
to  your  church.  The  mind  of  man,  wherever  en- 
lightened, and  permitted  to  act  freely,  is  opposed  to 
it.  The  m.ost  enlightened,  the  most  commercial  na- 
tions, are  anti-papal.  The  literature  of  the  world  is 
against  it.  The  genius  of  history  is  revealing  its 
past  wickedness  ;  the  genius  of  romance  is  holding 
it  up  to  ridicule  by  its  magic  creations ;  the  genius 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  ?& 

of  poetry  is  rehearsing  its  cruelties  in  undying  song. 
Nor  do  1  now  remember  a  living  apologist  for  popery 
out  of  the  ranks  of  your  priesthood,  worth  naming, 
save  Chateaubriand,  whose  eloquent  work,  "■  Genie 
du  Christianisme,"  is  much  more  of  a  romance  than 
a  serious  apology  for  your  system.  And  all  this 
whilst  the  historian — the  poet — the  novelist — the  es- 
sayist— the  penny-a-liner — the  grave  quarterly — the 
lighter  monthly — the  laughing  weekly,  are  out  in 
apposition  to  it. 

4.  The  prayers  and  the  piety  of  the  world  aie 
ao:ainst  it.  I  assert  this  as  a  rule  which  has  its  ex- 
ceptions — exceptions  within  the  pale  of  your  own 
church,  where,  I  believe,  in  spite  of  your  system, 
there  are  some  of  whom  the  world  is  not  worthy. 
But  from  tens  of  thousands  of  hearts,  in  every  land 
upon  which  the  sun  shines,  the  prayer  is  daily  as- 
cending to  heaven  that  popish  superstition  may  come 
to  a  perpetual  end.  And  God  is  a  prayer-hearing 
God. 

5.  The  causes  which  gave  rise  to  your  church 
are  rapidly  passing  away.  Popery,  you  know,  for 
the  most  part,  rose  in  times  of  great  ignorance.  As 
the  art  of  printing  was  unknown,  the  Bible  was  but 
little  circulated.  It  required  almost  a  lifetime  to 
transcribe  it,  and  a  large  fortune  to  purchase  it. 
Hence  your  priests  could  teach  almost  any  thing  for 
divine  truth,  because  the  people  had  no  Bible  by 
which  to  test  their  teaching-.  And  havinoj  enormous- 
ly  multiplied,  for  doctrines,  the   commandments  of 


80 

men,  it  became  your  settled  policy,  as  far  as  possi- 
ble, to  suppress  the  free  use  of  the  Bible.  This  is 
all  over  with  you ;  and  the  Bible  will  be  soon  in 
every  living  language  and  among  all  people.  And 
the  ignorance  of  those  ages  in  which  the  foundations 
of  your  church  were  laid  is  passing  away.  The 
schoolmaster  is  going  into  all  the  earth  ;  and,  with 
an  instructed  mind  and  an  open  Bible,  the  priest  will 
not  be  long  endured  as  a  substitute  for  the  preacher, 
nor  the  saying  of  mass  for  the  proclamation  of  the 
glorious  gospel  of  salvation.  Despotic  governments, 
too,  which  lent  the  power  of  the  state  to  the  priest, 
to  assist  him  in  riveting  the  chains  of  bondage  on 
the  people,  are  becoming  more  free.  In  many  na- 
tions they  have  passed,  in  many  more  they  are  pass- 
ing, away.  The  old  feudal  system  and  popery  form- 
ed the  upper  and  the  nether  millstone,  in  the  mill 
in  which  the  people  were  ground  down  to  the  state 
requisite  to  suit  your  purposes.  One  of  these  stones, 
the  feudal  system,  is  broken.  It  will  require  all 
your  wits  to  go  on  grinding  with  the  other. 

In  addition  to  all  this,  intercourse  among  the  na- 
tions is  rapidly  increasing.  By  the  power  of  steam 
the  most  distant  people  are  made  neighbors ;  and 
by  the  application  of  magnetism  the  thoughts  of  men 
are  made  to  travel  round  the  earth,  with  a  velocity 
far  surpassing  that  of  the  sun.  That  stagnation  of 
mind,  and  of  the  mass,  which  is  the  true  element  of 
popery,  as  of  all  superstition,  is  broken  up  ;  and  at 
the  prospect  of  a  steam  engine  whistling  through 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  Sl 

Italy  on  a  railway,  the  papal  world  is  alarmed.  And 
thus  the  causes  which  gave  rise  to  your  church,  and 
whose  continuance  for  so  many  ages  enabled  it  to 
maintain  its  fearful  pre-eminence,  are  rapidly  pass- 
ing away.  It  would  seem  as  if,  for  the  last  four  hun- 
dred years,  every  thing  vv^as  operating  against  her. 
The  sacking  of  Constantinople — the  discovery  of  the 
art  of  printing,  and  of  the  mariner's  compass,  and  of 
this  new  world — the  Reformation  by  Luther — the 
firmness  and  the  weakness  of  princes — the  periods 
of  war  and  peace — the  passing'  away  of  old  and  the 
rise  of  new  dynasties — the  virtues  and  the  vices  of 
popes,  prelates,  and  priests — their  learning  and  their 
ignorance — bloody  and  bloodless  revolutions — ^the 
pragmatic  sanction  of  Charles  VII. — the  revocation 
of  the  Edict  of  Nantz,  by  Louis  XIV. — the  irrup- 
tions  of  infidelity,  and  the  revivals  of  true  religion, 
all,  all  have  been  directed  by  the  hand  of  God,  so  as 
to  weaken  the  foundations,  and  as  to  hasten  the  de- 
sired period  of  her  final  fall. 

6.  And  more  than  all  this,  it  is  my  strong  convic- 
don  that  God  has  ordained  the  total  extinction  of  your 
church.  I  will  not  detain  you.  Sir,  nor  my  readers, 
with  any  dissertations  upon  the  prophecies  bearing 
on  this  point — this  would  be  aside  from  my  object. 
John,  when  wrapt  in  vision  in  Patmos,  informs  us 
that  Babylon  "  shall  be  utterly  burned  with  fire," 
and  calls  upon  God's  people  to  "  come  oat  of  her," 
that  they  might  not  be  partakers  of  hei  sins,  nor  re- 
ceive of  her  plagues.     And  Paul  tells  us  that  the 


6t  kirwan's  letters 

Lord  shall  consume  "  that  wicked  "  with  the  spirit 
of  his  mouth,  and  destroy  him  with  the  brightness  of 
his  rising.  And  by  "  Babylon,"  and  "  that  wicked," 
I  believe  Paul  and  John  mean  the  papal  church.  It 
has  already  lost  its  civil  power.  Once  she  could 
dethrone  kings,  and  absolve  subjects  from  their  alle- 
giance :  now,  in  a  civil  point  of  view,  there  is  no 
weaker  power  upon  earth.  Metternich  can  send  his 
Austrian  troops  into  the  States  of  the  Church  without 
fearing  the  least  injury  from  the  successor  of  Greg- 
ory the  Great !  How  is  the  miglity  fallen  !  Ronge 
in  Germany,  excited  to  opposition  by  the  impositions 
of  the  holy  coat  of  Treves,  has  led  out  one  hundred 
thousand  from  the  yoke  of  your  church  ;  and  all  that 
his  Holiness  can  do  is,  to  bear  it.  Even  in  the  city 
of  New-York,  the  resolute  Germans  are  flocking  out 
from  the  care  of  Holy  Mother ;  and  all  that  you  can 
do  is,  to  flourish  your  crook,  your  keys,  and  your 
crosier  around  the  altar  of  St.  Patrick's,  without  the 
least  power  to  stop  one  of  the  wandering  sheep.  The 
temporal  power  of  your  church  is  gone;  the  spirit- 
ual is  fast  going  after  it.  And  the  time  will  soon  be 
here,  when  the  pen  of  the  historian  will  write.  The 
Church  of  Rome  was,  but  is  not. 

How  this  is  to  be  done,  is  a  question  of  some  im- 
portance, and  upon  which  I  have  my  own  opinions, 
A  careful  looking  at  past  providences  may  cast  some 
light  upon  the  future,  and  inspire  hope  or  fear,  ac- 
cording to  the  relation  we  sustain  to  God  and  his 
church.     You  know,  Sir,  the  way  in  which  God 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  83 

treated  Pharaoh,  and  the  Canaanites,  and  how  he 
blotted  out  the  nations  that  opposed  the  progress  of 
his  people.  You  know  the  way  and  manner  in 
which  he  broke  up  the  Jewish  church  and  state,  for 
their  opposition  to  Christ  and  his  church!  You 
know  how  the  Reformation  progressed,  from  small 
beginnings,  until  it  opened  a  new  epoch  in  the  world's 
History — from  what  was  considered  a  little  ecclesias- 
tical gladiatorship,  until  kingdoms  were  shaken — 
until  thrones,  cemented  by  ages,  were  convulsed  and 
tottered  to  their  base — until  hostile  armies  met  in 
deadly  combat,  and  fattened  the  earth  with  the  blood 
of  the  Papist  and  the  Protestant.  God  has  the  con- 
trol of  all  agencies  to  accomplish  his  will.  Much 
will  be  done  for  the  extinction  of  your  church  by 
education — much  by  the  general  influence  of  learn- 
ing— much,  very  much  by  ihe  circulation  of  the 
Bible — much  more  by  the  simple  and  fervent  preach- 
ing of  the  gospel  to  the  masses,  as  did  Luther — and 
much  by  the  direct  agency  of  Him,  in  whose  sight 
the  nations  are  as  a  drop  in  the  bucket,  and  who  will 
overturn  and  overturn,  until  He  shall  come  whose 
right  it  is  to  reign. 

These,  Rev.  Sir,  are  in  brief  my  reasons  for  be- 
believing  that  your  church  is  destined  to  utter  ex- 
tinction. No  reasons  can  be  drawn  for  its  future 
continuance,  from  its  continuance  until  now.  If 
your  people  had  not  been  papists,  they  might  have 
been  pagans  or  infidels.  The  Canaanites  remained 
a  long  time  in  the  land  to  perplex  the  Jews.    Pagan- 


kirwan's  letters 


ism  continued  for  ages  in  the  Roman  world,  after  its 
conversion  to  Christianity.  Yet  both  became  ex- 
tinct, save  as  paganism  has  been  perpetuated  by  your 
people.  Nor  can  any  argument  be  drawn  from  the 
occasional  conversions  to  your  communion  which 
are  now  occurring.  You  know  that  in  ages  past 
some  Christian  ministers  relapsed  into  idolatry  ;  and 
that  during  the  French  Revolution  some  of  your 
bishops,  and  many  of  your  priests,  went  over  to  in- 
fidelity. You  must  lay  no  flattering  unction  to  your 
soul  from  arguments  like  these.  Your  church  is 
opposed  to  the  truth  of  God — to  the  people  of  God — 
to  the  will  of  God.  The  shed  blood  of  the  martyrs 
is  crying  to  heaven  against  it.  Its  extinction  is  cer- 
tain ;  and  may  God  hasten  it,  in  his  own  time  and 
way. 

With  the  most  sincere  prayers  for  your  temporal 
and  eternal  welfare,  I  remain,  with  great  respect, 
Your  fellow-countryman  and  fellow-sinner, 

Kir  WAN. 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES.  85 


LETTER  IX. 

To  all,  and  especially  to  American,  Roman  Catholics : 

My  DEAR  Friends, — Having  addressed  a  series 
of  letters  to  one  of  your  most  celebrated  and  excel- 
lent bishops  in  this  country,  the  Right  Reverend 
John  Hughes,  of  New  York,  candidly  stating  the 
reasons  which  induced  me  to  abandon  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  and  which  prevent  my  return  to 
it,  I  desire,  before  I  lay  aside  my  pen,  perhaps  never 
to  be  resumed  on  this  subject,  to  address  myself  to 
you.  And  I  turn  from  the  bishop  to  you,  for  vari- 
ous reasons,  some  of  which  I  desire  in  the  briefest 
manner  to  state. 

1.  Whilst  entirely  honest,  I  believe  you  to  be  a 
people  deluded  by  your  priests.  They  have  taken 
from  you  the  Bible — they  forbid  you  to  reason  on 
the  subject  of  religion — they  have  filled  your  minds 
with  prejudices  against  all  who  resist  or  question 
their  authority — they  have  imposed  upon  you  for 
doctrines  the  commandments  of  men — and  they  have 
impressed  upon  you  the  belief  that  with  them  is  the 
power  to  admit  or  to  exclude  you  from  heaven.  In 
stating  these  things  I  say  what  I  do  know,  and  what 
you  know.  With  me  it  is  no  theory,  for  I  have  felt 
it  all. 

2.  1  believe  you  to  be  a  people  impoverished  and 

6 


86  kirwan's  letters 

degraded  by  your  pmsts.  The  reasons  for  my 
opinion  on  this  subject  are  stated  in  the  preceding 
letters.  Ignorance  being  the  parent  of  papal  devo- 
tion, the  priests  have  shut  out  from  you  the  light  of 
knowledge.  Ignorance  begets  vice,  and  vice  is  the 
parent  of  poverty.  Or  if  ignorance  begets  not  vice, 
it  is  the  rank  soil  in  which  superstition  attains  its 
most  magnificent  growth.  And  which  most  de- 
grades a  people,  vice  or  superstition,  it  is  not  worth 
the  while  to  inquire.  I  verily  believe  it  impossible 
to  be  a  true  papist  without  sinking  the  man. 

3.  I  believe  that  the  papal  world  need  look  for 
no  redress  of  grievances,  for  no  true  reformation, 
from  its  prelates  or  priests.  The  history  of  the 
world,  and  the  history  of  the  church,  and  the  prir>. 
ciples  of  human  nature,  forbid  us  to  entertain  the 
idea.  How  few  and  far  between,  the  instances  in 
which  despotic  kings,  or  rulers,  of  their  own  accord, 
retrenched  their  expenditures  to  relieve  the  burdens 
of  their  subjects,  or  yielded  their  usurped  rights  to 
increase  the  liberty  of  their  people.  And  what  of 
civil  liberty  the  nations  possess,  has  cost  the  people 
ages  of  contest  with  tyrants,  and  rivers  of  blood. 

And  when  have  high  ecclesiastics  ever  led  the 
way  in  salutary  reformation  ?  Not  at  the  advent  of 
Jesus  Christ.  It  was  the  High  Priest  that  sat  in 
Moses'  seat,  and  his  subordinates  that  nailed  to  the 
cross  the  Lord  of  glory.  It  was  the  commission  of 
the  high  priest  to  persecute  the  dissenters  at  Damas- 
cus from  the  order  established  at  Jerusalem,  that 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  87 

Saul  of  Tarsus  carried  in  his  pocket,  when  he  was 
arrested  by  heaven.  The  Reformers  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  whom  your  priests  delight  to  dis- 
honor, but  yet  who  have  given  civil  and  religious 
liberty  to  the  world,  were  hunted,  as  by  bloodhounds, 
by  the  high  ecclesiastics  of  their  day.  Every  religious 
reform  of  permanent  utility,  and  in  every  land  upon 
which  the  sun  shines,  has  been  in  consequence  of 
the  united  action  of  the  people.  There  occurs  not 
to  me  now  an  instance  to  the  contrary. 

It  is  not  in  human  nature  to  surrender  power  once 
possessed — nor  to  give  up  a  gainful  traffic — nor,  for 
the  sake  of  benefitinor  or  enriching  the  mass,  to 
yield  up  privileges.  Grace  leads  to  many  sacrifices 
to  do  good  to  men  ;  but  nature  holds  on  to  the  privi- 
leges of  order,  station,  cast,  however  they  may  bear 
upon  the  people ;  and  if  ever  the  people  are  freed 
from  them,  it  must  be  by  their  own  acts.  Roman 
Catholics !  you  have  nothing  to  expect  from  your 
priests,  but  the  perpetuation  of  their  bad  dominion 
over  your  mind  and  conscience  ;  and  their  vigilant 
and  united  efforts  to  crush  every  man,  and  every 
influence,  that  would  weaken  it.  The  principles 
of  your  church  forbid  its  reformation — a  true  refor- 
mation would  be  the  end  of  it — there  is  no  alterna- 
tive for  you  but  to  abandon  it. 

These  are  the  reasons,  Roman  Catholics,  why  I 
turn  to  you,  and  why  I  would  implore  you,  by  all 
that  is  to  be  desired  in  a  mind  free  to  think, — in  a 
soul  free  to  love  and  to  act, — free  in  its  access  to 


88  kirwan's  letters 

God  without  priestly  taxes  and  interferences ; — by 
all  that  is  to  be  desired  in  the  social  and  religious 
elevation  of  your  children,  and  in  the  moral  regen- 
eration of  your  race,  to  rise,  and  to  fling  from 
around  you  the  chains  forged  in  the  dark  ages,  and 
with  which  priests  would  bind  you  to  their  footstools 
in  this  age  of  light. 

You  must  ren  ember  that  your  position  in  these 
United  States  is  very  different  from  what  is  that  of 
those  yet  living  in  the  papal  countries  of  Europe. 
Here  you  are  free  to  think,  and  act  for  yourselves. 
In  Ireland  you  might  be  afraid  of  the  priest's  whip, 
or  of  his  cursing  you  from  the  altar.  I  have  seen 
myself  a  priest  whip  a  man  in  the  street ;  and  I 
have  heard  the  same  priest  curse  the  same  man  from 
the  altar.  But,  here,  his  whip  has  no  terror,  and 
his  curses  are  harmless. 

And,  then,  as  to  those  of  you  from  Ireland,  you 
are  in  a  very  different  position,  as  to  the  Protestant 
community,  from  what  you  were  at  home.  Protes- 
tants here  are  your  friends.  You  are  not  taxed 
to  support  a  religion  you  hate.  Your  cow  or  your 
pig  are  not  driven  from  your  door  to  pay  your  tithes. 
There  is  nothing  here  to  chafe  your  mind,  or  to  irri- 
tate your  feelings,  or  to  give  cause  to  your  priests 
for  fiery  appeals  to  your  passions.  Whatever  may 
be  the  feelings  of  wicked  men  towards  you,  there  is 
no",  a  pious  Protestant  in  the  land  that  would  not  do 
you  good,  and  that  would  not  interpose  to  protect 
you  from  wrong.     So  that  the  hostile  feelings  to- 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  89 

wards  Protestants  which  had  an  excuse  in  Ireland, 
have  10  excuse  here.  If  you  wish  to  think  for 
yourselves  there  are  thousands  to  defend  you  ; — and 
if,  on  examination,  you  think  as  I  do  about  popery, 
and  quit  the  church,  you  have  nothing  to  fear  from 
priestly  anathemas  hurled  at  you,  or  after  you,  from 
the  altar ;  nor  from  an  ignorant  rabble  that  would 
persecute  you  as  an  apostate. 

There  is  one  point,  my  friends,  to  which  I  would 
direct  your  special  attention.  From  your  cradle 
you  have  been  taught  to  regard  your  priests  as  pos- 
sessing peculiar  spiritual  powers  which  you  resist  at 
your  peril.  And  in  every  way  and  form  they  seek 
to  impress  you  with  the  belief  that  they  possess  such 
powers,  and  that  their  communication  with  heaven 
is  beyond  that  of  ordinary  mortals.  Now  this  is  an 
old  device,  and  one  that  is  practiced  very  widely 
for  the  purpose  of  awing  the  common  and  vulgar 
mind.  Thus  did  the  ancient  priests  of  Egypt,  who 
taught  the  people  to  worship  the  sun,  the  cow,  the 
cat,  and  the  snake.  Thus  do  the  priests  of  Brahma 
at  the  present  day.  Some  of  them,  by  their  pre- 
tended intercourse  with  heaven,  have  become  so  holy 
that  the  people  consider  the  water  in  which  they 
wash  their  feet  holy,  and  seek  to  be  sprinkled  with 
it  with  intense  earnestness.  The  Calmucs  believe 
in  a  priesthood,  all  of  which  is  united  in  Lama,  who 
is  absorbed  in  deity.  Tie  old  Romans  had  their 
priests,  and  their  oracles,  that  were  regarded  as 
knowing  and  declaring  the  mind  of  the  gods.     Their 

8* 


90 

power  over  the  people  was  immense.  And  when 
pagan  Rome  became  papal  it  was  a  point  greatly 
desired  to  retain  the  power  of  the  pagan  priest  over 
the  people  in  the  hands  of  the  papal.  It  was 
attained  ;  and  it  has  been  retained.  And  the  power 
claimed  by  your  priests  for  the  better  subjecting  you 
to  their  yoke,  is  the  power  claimed  by  all  the  priests 
of  heathenism  and  Mahometanism,  and  for  the  very 
same  purpose.  It  is  the  claim  of  fanatics  and  im- 
postors in  all  climes  and  among  all  people.  And 
whether  set  up  on  the  banks  of  the  Ganges,  or  of 
the  Tiber ; — on  the  shores  of  the  Bosphorus,  or  on 
the  banks  of  the  Hudson,  its  object  is  to  exalt  tlie 
priest  that  he  may  govern  the  people.  Your  priests 
have  no  more  power  with  God  than  any  good  man 
in  the  land, — nor  as  much,  unless  they  are  equally 
pious.  If  not  pious  and  sincere,  they  are  simply 
impostors,  who  make  a  living  by  their  traffic  in 
your  souls. 

Once  secure  a  just  and  scriptural  view  of  the 
character  of  a  true  minister  of  Christ,  and  of  the 
great  end  of  a  gospel  ministry,  and  the  whole  frame- 
work of  popery  vanishes.  The  end  of  the  gospel 
ministry  is,  to  hold  up  a  crucified  Christ  as  God'% 
great  remedy  for  the  sins,  and  guilt,  and  woes  of  our 
race,  and  so  to  expound  the  moral  state  of  the  sin- 
ner, and  the  adaptedness  of  the  work  of  Christ  to 
that  state,  as  to  lead  him  to  see  that  his  only  hope  of 
life  is  in  the  cross,  and  then  to  beseech  him,  in  Christ's 
stead,  to  be  reconciled  to  God.     This  being  the  end 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  91 

of  the  ministry,  a  true  minister  is  one,  who,  with  the 
love  of  God  and  of  the  salvation  of  men  filling  his 
soul,  goes  out  into  all  the  ways  v-'hich  providence 
opens  before  him,  preaching  every  where,  as  did 
Peter  and  Paul,  "  repentance  towards  God,  and  faith 
in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  He  has  only  one  ob- 
ject— to  lead  ?nen  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.  He 
carries  no  wafers  to  convert  into  Christs  ;  he  makes 
no  pretensions  to  the  power  of  regenerating  souls  by 
baptizing  them  ;  he  calls  not  upon  men  to  confess  to 
him,  but  to  God  ;  he  has  no  unmeaning  masses  to 
mutter ;  no  relics  to  sell ;  no  unmeaning  rites  to  en- 
join ;  no  olive  oil,  or  holy  salt,  or  holy  water,  to  drive 
away  demons.  He  goes  out,  wearing  no  sacerdotal 
garments  to  astonish  the  vulgar,  with  an  open  Bible 
to  expound  it,  praying  that  the  Holy  Ghost  may  so 
apply  its  truths  to  the  hearts  of  his  hearers  that  they 
may  be  created  anew  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good 
works.  To  those  who  believe,  he  administers  the 
rite  of  baptism ;  and  as  God  gives  him  opportunity, 
he  administers  the  Lord's  supper  to  the  faithful,  for 
the  purpose  of  commemorating  the  death  of  Christ, 
until  he  comes  the  second  time,  without  sin,  unto 
salvation.  Such  were  the  ministers  of  Christ  before 
the  rise  of  popery ;  and  such  only  are  the  true  min- 
isters of  Christ  now.  If  so,  will  you  bear  the  impo- 
sitions of  your  priests  an  hour  longer  ? 

There  is  one  other  point  to  which  I  would  direct 
your  special  attention,  because  it  is  one  upon  which 
you  have  been  greatly  deceived :  1  mean  the  church. 


03  kirwan's  letters 

Every  GfTort  has  been  put  forth  by  your  priests  to 
mystify  this  topic,  and  to  deceive  you  in  reference 
to  it.  All  who  truly  believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  and 
practice  the  precepts  of  his  word,  are  reconciled  to 
God.  They  are  adopted  into  the  family  of  God— 
they  are  the  sons  and  daughters  of  the  Lord  AL 
mighty.  A  connexion  of  such  with  any  branch  of 
the  visible  church,  does  not  interfere  with  their  coiv 
nexion  with  the  family  of  God.  No  good  man  is  lost, 
and  no  bad  man  is  saved,  because  of  their  connexion 
with  any  church.  As  a  man  may  be  a  true  Papist 
and  be  a  Jesuit,  or  a  Jansenist,  or  a  monk  of  La 
Trappe,  or  a  shorn  friar,  so  he  may  be  a  true  Chris- 
tian,  and  a  member  both  of  the  visible  and  invisible 
church,  and  be  a  Protestant  or  a  Papist,  and  a  mem- 
ber of  any  of  the  sects  into  which  they  are  both  di- 
vided, which  hold  to  the  true  atonement  of  Jesus 
Christ.  But  you  will  ask,  Have  you  no  preference 
for  one  branch  of  the  church  above  another  ?  I  have. 
You  ask  again.  What  branch  is  it  ?  That  in  which 
the  most  truth  and  the  least  error,  the  most  simpli- 
city and  the  least  pompousness,  exist.  Of  course, 
the  very  last  branch  I  would  select  would  be,  the 
papal ;  and  in  the  Protestant  church,  the  very  last 
branch  I  would  select  is,  that  which  is  most  like  the 
papal  The  true  unity  of  the  church  is  unity  in  the 
truth,  and  union  to  Christ. 

Rip-ht  views  of  the  ministry  of  Christ,  and  of  the 
church  of  Christ,  in  one  hour,  blow  the  whole  fabric 
of  popery  into  the  air. 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  93 

In  this  appeal  to  you,  Roman  Catholics,  I  am  no 
interested  party.  It  would  not  be  a  cent  in  my 
pocket  if  every  man  of  you  were  to  abandon  the 
pope  to-morrow  ;  nor  will  it  be  a  cent  out  of  it  if 
every  man  of  you  continue  to  believe  that  your 
priests  can  turn  a  wafer  into  Christ — and  regenerate 
you  by  baptism — and  absolve  you  from  your  sins — 
and  get  you  admission  to  heaven,  by  rubbing  you 
with  olive  oil,  when  dying.  Can  Bishop  Hughes,  or 
your  priests  say  this  ?  Why,  then,  you  ask,  this  so- 
licitude about  us  ?  On  these  accounts  :  I  know  you 
to  be  deceived,  and  I  desire  you  to  be  undeceived. 
I  know  that  you  are  led  to  place  dependence  on  rites 
and  ceremonies,  for  a  preparation  for  the  life  to 
come,  which  give  no  such  preparation.  I  know  that 
you  are  robbed  of  your  money,  for  services  that  only 
tend  to  degrade  you — that  you  are  deprived  of  the 
dearest  rights  of  man,  an  open  Bible,  and  free  ac- 
cess to  God,  for  yourselves,  without  any  saintly  or 
priestly  attorneys  to  plead  for  you.  I  see  you  ham- 
pered and  fettered  on  every  hand.  By  telling  the 
priest  every  thing  you  do,  you  put  your  peace  and 
liberty  into  his  hands.  You  cannot  I'ead  the  Bible 
without  his  license,  and  be  a  good  Catholic.  You 
cannot  retain  your  standing,  and  read  any  book 
which  he  prohibits,  or  fail  in  any  duty  which  he  en- 
joins. You  cannot  bow  your  knee  before  God,  with 
a  Protestant,  around  his  family  altar,  without  the 
terror  of  a  severe  penance  when  you  next  go  to  con- 
fession.    I  see  you  freemen,  in  a  land  of  freedom. 


M  KIRWAN  S    LETTERS 

and  yet  the  veriest  slaves  that  tread  the  soil,  because 
your  minds  and  souls  are  in  fetters.  I  see  you  a 
noble  people,  yielding  a  degrading  homage  to  men 
that  deceive  you,  and  sustaining,  even  in  your  pov- 
erty, with  a  princely  liberality,  institutions  that  de- 
grade you.  And  I  desire,  with  an  irrepressible 
desire,  to  see  you  the  subjects  of  the  perfect  law  of 
liberty  with  which  Christ  makes  his  people  free. 
These,  my  friends,  are  the  reasons  of  my  solicitude 
about  you. 

However  I  feel  towards  the  system  of  popery,  or 
towards  the  priests  of  the  system,  there  is  but  one 
feeling  and  one  desire  in  my  heart  towards  you : 
that  feeling  is  one  of  affection  and  interest — and  that 
desire  is,  that  you  may  be  emancipated  from  a  sys- 
tem of  superstition  and  spiritual  despotism,  as  de- 
grading and  grinding  as  any  that  God  has  ever  per- 
mitted to  exist. 

With  great  respect,  yours, 

KiRWAN. 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES.  95 


LETTER  X. 

Conclusion.  The  Indian  devotee — Faith  in  Christ  saves — The  dying  thief 
— Peter  at  the  feast  of  Pentecost — The  plan  of  Salvation — The  Gospel 
and  Papal  way  of  Salvation  contrasted — A  call  upon  Irish  Roman  Cath- 
olics. 

My  dear  Friends, — But  a  few  years  since  a 
Christian  minister  in  India,  in  the  pursuit  of  the 
objects  of  his  holy  mission,  met  with  a  Hindoo 
devotee.  A  noonday  sun  was  pouring  its  burning 
rays  from  a  burning  sky,  upon  the  burning  sands 
on  which  the  meeting  took  place.  From  its  heat  the 
devotee  had  no  protection  save  the  piece  of  cloth 
which  hung  around  his  loins.  He  wore  a  pair  of 
sandals  pierced  with  iron  nails,  which,  at  every  step, 
penetrated  the  muscles  and  nerves  which  are  so 
wonderfully  collected  and  interwoven  in  the  soles  of 
the  feet.  His  sandals  were  filled  with  his  blood, 
which  marked  his  every  footstep.  He  was  an  object 
frightful  to  behold — his  body  blistered  by  the  sun, 
his  hair  clotted  with  filth  hanging  around  his  head, 
his  feet  swollen,  bleeding  and  painful,  almost  re- 
fusing to  move.  The  missionary  asked  him  why 
he  wore  those  sandals,  and  why  he  subjected  him- 
6elf  to  such  intense  suffering?  He  replied,  that  he 
had  committed  great  sins  which  were  greatly  offen- 
sive to  the  gods,  and  that  in  order  to  secure  the  for- 
giveness of  those  sins  he  wore  those  sandals,  and 
cheerfully  submitted  to  all  his  sufferings. 


96 

Filled  with  compassion  for  the  deluded  man,  the 
minister  of  God  told  him  that  he  could  show  him  a 
way  in  which  he  could  secure  the  forgiveness  of 
his  great  sins  without  those  sandals,  and  without 
subjecting  himself  to  such  terrible  sufferings.  "  Is 
there  such  a  way,  and  if  so,  what  is  it  ?"  exclaimed 
the  devotee,  with  the  most  intense  interest.  "  There 
is  such  a  way,"  replied  the  missionary;  and  taking 
his  Bible,  he  read  to  him  and  expounded  the  follow- 
ing passage :  "  For  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he 
gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth 
in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life." 
John  3  :  16.  He  told  the  poor  deluded  man  of  the 
sins  of  men — of  the  love  of  God  in  giving  his  Son 
to  die  for  the  sins  of  those  who  should  believe  on 
nim — of  the  birth,  and  sufferings,  and  death,  of 
Jesus  Christ — and  he  especially  dwelt  upon  this  one, 
great,  glorious,  and  scriptural  idea,  that  he  that  be- 
lieves on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  shall  be  saved.  The 
devotee  heard  with  amazement.  He  believed.  He 
rejected  the  false  religion  of  his  fathers,  though 
sanctioned  by  a  thousand  ages.  He  renounced  sub- 
jection to  his  priests  and  their  traditions.  He  flung 
from  him  his  nailed  and  bloody  sandals,  by  walking 
in  which  he  supposed  he  was  saving  his  soul  by  the 
tortures  of  his  body.  He  received  Christian  bap- 
tism at  the  hands  of  the  man  of  God  that  taught 
him  the  more  excellent  way,  and  lived  and  died  in 
the  faith  and  hope  of  the  Gospel. 

In  many  respects   your  circumstances,  Roman 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  97 

Catholics,  widely  differ  from  what  were  those  ci"  this 
Hindoo  devotee.  You  live  in  a  land,  and  in  an  age 
of  light.  You  form  parts  of  a  great  community, 
which  is  penetrated  in  every  direction  by  moral  and 
religious  influences.  And  yet  in  many  respects 
your  circumstances  are  like  unto  his.  You  are  de- 
luded by  priests — you  believe  in  their  ghostly  power, 
and  your  soul  submits  to  it — you  are  looking  to  your 
confessions,  and  penances,  and  austerities,  for  salva- 
tion— you  are  excluded  from  the  light  of  the  Bible 
—with  all  simplicity  and  honesty  you  pray  to  saints, 
and  to  the  virgin ;  and  perform  all  that  is  laid  upon 
you  by  your  father  confessor,  and  in  this  way, 
through  the  religion  of  the  priest,  and  not  through 
the  religion  of  the  gospel,  you  hope  to  get  to  heaven. 
But  you  are  deceived.  Your  hopes  are  honest,  but 
they  are  built  upon  a  wrong  foundation.  It  is  not 
by  doing,  or  suffering,  but  by  heUeving,  that  we  can 
attain  unto  the  salvation  of  the  soul.  "  He  that  be- 
lieveth  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  shall  be  saved,  and 
he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  "  He  that 
believeth  on  the  Son  hath  life."  Roman  Catholics! 
my  brethren  and  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh, 
follow,  then,  the  example  of  the  Hindoo  devotee. 
Give  up  your  beads,  and  your  Agnus  Dei — your 
penances  and  ritual  observances — your  crosses, 
your  confessions  to  men,  and  your  holy  water ;  and 
go  to  your  Bibles  and  to  the  Saviour  of  the  Bible. 
What  all  your  rites  and  observances  can  never 
accomplish,   simple   faith  in  Jesus  Christ    accona- 

9 


98 

plishes,  and  in  the  moment  faith  fixes  itself  upon  a 
crucified  Christ. 

That  you  may  see  this  clearly,  permit  me  to  state 
to  you  another  incident.  When  our  Lord  was  put 
to  death,  the  wicked  Jews,  the  more  deeply  to  de- 
grade him,  caused  him  to  be  crucified  between  two 
thieves.  One  of  these  saw,  in  the  convulsions  of 
nature  around  him,  the  evidences  of  the  divinity  of 
Him  who  was  hanging  by  his  side  on  the  cross  ;  and 
whilst  his  companion  in  wickedness  derided  and  blas- 
phemed, he  cried  out  from  the  depths  of  a  convicted 
and  believing  soul  unto  Jesus,  "  Lord,  remember  me 
when  thou  comest  in  thy  kingdom."  The  following 
is  the  reply  of  the  Saviour :  "  To-day  shalt  thou  be 
with  me  in  paradise."  Here,  you  see,  my  friends, 
are  no  penances — no  prayers  to  saints — no  holy  wa- 
ter— no  olive  oil,  blessed  on  Maunday-Thursday— 
no  purgatory  ;  it  is  simply  failh  in  Jesus  Christ,  then 
death,  and  then  paradise,  which  is  only  another  name 
for  heaven  !  What  was  it  that  opened  heaven  to  this 
dying  thief,  and  gave  him  admission  to  its  happy 
mansions,  as  one  of  the  redeemed  of  the  Lord  ?  It 
was  simply  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  "  He  that  believ- 
eth  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  shall  be  saved."  And 
the  faith  which  opened  heaven  to  the  dying  thief, 
will  open  it  to  you.  Faith  is  the  key  which  opens  hea- 
ven to  your  souls,  and  not  baptism,  nor  the  eucharist, 
nor  penance,  nor  extreme  unction.  Give  up,  then, 
your  crosses  and  your  pictures,  and  your  depend- 
ence upon  saints  and  sacraments,  and  go  to  Jesus 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  99 

Christ  for  yourselves — with  true  hearts  say,  "  Lord, 
I  believe,  help  thou  my  unbelief,"  and  life,  eternal 
life  is  yours. 

That  you  may  see  this  clearly,  permit  me  to  state 
yet  another  incident.    The  Apostle  Peter  never  said 
a  mass  in  his  life — he  never  changed  a  wafer  into 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ — he  never  sent  a  poor 
sinner  to  pray  to  a  saint  or  virgin — he  never  went 
into  a  little  box,  or  a  dark  room,  to  hear  confession. 
He   was  a  simple,  warm-hearted  preacher,  and,  in 
his  day,  labored  to  impress  upon  the  minds  of  men 
these  two  truths — that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  promised 
Messiah,  and  that  all  that  believed  in  him  would  be 
saved.     Now,  we  learn  from  the  second  chapter  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  that  Peter  preached  to  the 
multitudes  assembled  at  Jerusalem  to  keep  the  feast 
of  Pentecost,  with  great  power.     He  mightily  con- 
vinced them,   from  the   Scriptures,  that  God   had 
made  the  Jesus  whom  they  crucified  both  Lord  and 
Christ.     Convicted  of  their  deep  sinfulness,  by  his 
powerful  preaching,  and  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  multi- 
tudes crowd  around  him,  asking,  "  What  shall  we 
do  to   be  saved  ?"     What  does  he  say  in   reply  ? 
Does  he  tell  them  to  go  to  confession — or  to  do  pen- 
ance — or  to  fast  on  Lent,  or  on  Fridays  ?     Does  he 
send  them  to  the  saints,  to  ask  their  intercession  I 
Nothing  like  this.    What,  then,  does  he  say  ?    "  Re- 
pent, and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall 
receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."    They  obeyed ; 


100  KIRWAN  S    LETTERS 

that  is,  they  forsook  their  sins — they  believed  in  Je- 
sus Christ — they  were  baptized  in  his  name — and 
on  that  occasion  three  thousand  souls  were  added  to 
the  church. 

My  dear  Roman  Catho.ic  friends,  I  once  suffered 
just  as  you  now  do,  because  of  my  utter  ignorance 
as  to  the  way  of  forgiveness  with  God.  I  was  taught 
all  about  confession,  and  confirmation,  and  penance, 
and  saints'  days,  and  fastings,  and  holy  water,  and 
saying  "  Hail  Mary."  I  looked  upon  the  priest  as 
the  door-keeper  of  heaven,  without  whose  permission 
there  was  no  admittance.  But  I  knew  nothing  about 
the  Bible,  and  was  taught  nothing  about  the  work  of 
Christ  for  the  sinner,  nor  about  the  work  of  the  Spi- 
rit in  him.  In  great  mercy,  and  in  the  way  stated 
in  my  letters  to  Bishop  Hughes,  I  became  a  reader 
of  the  Bible  ;  and  to  my  utter  amazement,  I  found 
there  taught,  with  perfect  plainness,  the  way  of  sal- 
vation, which  the  priest  had  wrapped  up  in  mystery 
inextricable.  The  wayfaring  man,  though  a  fool, 
may  understand  the  way  in  which  a  soul  may  be 
saved,  as  taught  in  the  Bible — it  is  beyond  the  com- 
prehension of  Gabriel,  as  taught  by  your  priests.  Do 
any  of  you  ask,  as  did  the  heathen  jailer  of  Philippi, 
when  terrified  by  the  effects  of  the  crashing  earth- 
quake, "  What  shall  I  do  to  be  saved  ?"  Permit 
me,  as  a  friend,  who  has  no  object  in  view  but  your 
temporal  and  eternal  good,  to  place  before  you  what 
I  regard  as  the  scripf.ural  answer  to  tPiis  momentous 
question. 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  101 

1.  You  must  feel  that  you  are  a  sinner,  exceed- 
ingly, in  the  sight  of  God.  The  Bible  teaches  us 
that  we  are  sinners  by  nature  and  by  practice.  It 
is  one  thing  to  believe  this — it  is  another  to  feel  it. 
You  must  feel  it.  No  man  ever  sends  for  a  physi- 
cian until  he  feels  that  he  is  sick.  The  people  to 
whom  Peter  preached  never  asked  what  they  should 
do  to  be  saved,  until  "  they  were  pricked  in  their 
heart." 

2.  You  must  feel  and  know  that  there  is  no  way 
of  securing  the  pardon  of  your  sins,  but  through  the 
redemption  there  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  We  are  ex- 
pressly taught,  "  there  is  no  other  name  under  hea- 
ven given  among  men  whereby  we  must  be  saved." 
Acts  iv.  12.  This  is  an  idea  that  your  mind  must 
grasp  with  all  its  powers ;  and  which  you  are  in 
danger  of  letting  slip,  because  of  the  way  and  man- 
ner in  which  you  have  been  instructed,  as  to  the 
efficacy  of  sacraments,  and  priestly  manipulations, 
and  ritual  observances. 

3.  You  must  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
This  is  the  end  and  the  sum  of  all  the  instructions  of 
the  New  Testament  to  sinners.  This  is  the  com- 
mandment of  God,  that  ye  believe  in  the  name  of  his 
Son.  Faith  brings  you  into  a  living  union  with 
Christ,  for  whose  sake  alone  you  are  accepted  and 
saved. 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  trvie  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion, "  What  shall  I  do  to  be  saved  ?  "  You  must  feel 
that  you  are  a  sinner ;  and  you  must  feel  that  none 

9* 


102  EIR WAN's    LETTERS 

but  Christ  can  save  you ;  and  in  heart  and  s<iul  you 
must  cordially  receive  him,  as  made  unto  you  of 
God  wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and  sanctification, 
and  redemption.  A  sense  of  sin  will  induce  you  to 
seek  for  its  remedy.  Christ  crucified,  bearing  the 
sins  of  his  people  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree,  is 
God's  remedy  for  sin.  And  believing  in  Christ  is 
the  application  of  the  remedy.  And  believing  in 
Christ,  should  you  die  the  very  next  hour,  your  soul 
would  go,  cleansed  by  his  atoning  blood,  to  join  the 
general  assembly  and  church  of  the  first-born  in 
heaven. 

Need  I  stop,  ere  I  close  this  letter,  to  place  in  con- 
trast before  you  the  gospel  plan  of  salvation  with  the 
plan  of  your  priests  ?  Must  not  the  contrast  strike 
yourselves,  as  you  read  and  ponder  ?  You  ask 
what  you  must  do  to  be  saved  ?  The  priest  tells 
you  to  confess — to  do  penance — to  pray  to  the 
saints — to  keep  Lent — to  eat  no  meat  on  stated  days 
— to  go.  to  mass — to  torture  your  body.  And  when 
all  this  is  done,  when  you  come  to  die  you  must  be 
anointed  with  olive  oil,  blessed  on  Maunday-Thurs- 
day.  Nor  will  this  do.  You  have  then  to  go  to 
purgatory,  to  atone  for  your  venial  sins  by  your  own 
suffering,  unless  you  are  bought  out  by  the  alms  and 
suffrages  of  the  faithful,  in  paying  for  masses  for 
your  deliverance  !  What  a  long,  and  complicated, 
and  expensive  process !  And  after  all,  there  is  no 
telling  the  time  when  the  suffrages  of  the  faithful,  or 
the  masses  of  the  priests,  will  secure  vour  deliver- 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  103 

ance  from  purgatorial  fires  !  What  a  dark  and  fear- 
ful process ! 

In  the  face  of  all  this,  the  gospel  declares  to  you 
that  the  blood  of  Christ  cleanses  from  all  sin  ;  and 
that  whosoever  believes  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
shall  be  saved.  It  offers  you  a  free,  a  full,  a  perfect 
salvation,  and  without  any  priestly  interferences, 
and  "  without  money  and  without  price." 

Can  you  hesitate  a  moment  between  the  plan  of 
the  priest  and  the  plan  of  the  gospel  ?  The  one  de- 
bases you  as  a  man — makes  you  the  slave  of  the 
priest,  and  cheats  you  of  heaven  :  the  other  addresses 
you  as  a  moral  and  intellectual  being — sends  you  to 
the  cross  for  yourself — gives  you  free  access  to  God, 
and  secures  for  you  eternal  life. 

Irish  Roman  Catholics !  would  that  I  could  induce 
you  to  look  at  this  great  subject  in  the  light  of  the 
Bible.  It  is  intimately  connected  with  your  tempo- 
ral and  eternal  interests,  and  with  the  interests  of 
unborn  generations.  When  a  boy,  I  often  heard, 
and  never  but  with  burning  indignation,  of  the  ma- 
gistrate, the  tool  of  British  power,  entering  the  houses 
of  the  Irish  suspected  of  disaffection,  and  tearing 
from  its  frame  the  speech  of  Emmet,  made  in  reply 
to  the  question  of  the  blood-thirsty  judge  that  tried 
him,  "  What  he  had  to  say,  why  the  sentence  of 
death  should  not  be  passed  against  him  according  to 
law  ?  "  The  British  ministry  felt  that  that  speech 
fostered  the  spirit  of  freedom  in  the  Irish  bosom,  and 
made  every  man  that  read  it  to  resolve,  at  whatever 


104  kirwan's  letters 

expense,  to  be  free  ;   and  they  destroyed  every  copy 
of  it  that  could  be  found,  and  forbad  its  publication. 
As  my  kindred  were  among  the  disaffected  ones,  I 
felt  it  to  the  quick,  and  so  feel  it  yet.     And  what, 
fhink  you,  must  be  my  feelings  now,  in  the  vigor  of 
my  manhood,  when  I  see,  in  this  free  land,  the  de- 
scendants of  those  who  fought  at  Vinegar  Hill,  and 
at  Tara,  permitting  individuals  calling  themselves 
the   priests  of  the   religion  of  God,   to  enter  their 
houses  and  take  away  their  Bibles,  and  to  forbid  them, 
by  the  terrors  of  eternity,  to  think   for  themselves, 
on  the  most  important  of  all  subjects  connected  with 
their  being  !   It  is  the  very  feeling  that  prompted  the 
Ri'itish  spies  to  destroy  the  speech  of  Emmet,  that 
now  prompts  your  priests  to  destroy  your  Bibles, 
The  one  fostered  the  spirit  of  civil,  the  other  of  reli- 
gious freedom.      The    British  ministry  wished    to 
suppress  the  breathing  of  your  fathers  after  civil 
liberty  :  your  priests  wish  to  suppress  the  breathings 
of  you,  their  children,  after  religious  freedom.    And 
will  you,  the  sons  of  noble  sires,  submit,  in  a  land 
of  freedom,  to  wear  the  galling  chains  of  spiritual 
bondage  ?     Will   you  submit  to  have  these  chains 
clanking  around  you  to  the  grave— and  when  you 
die  to  have  them  bound  upon  your  children,  and  for 
no  earthly  purpose  but  to  sustain  a  priesthood  and  a 
hierarchy,  for  whose  utter  overthrow  the  civil  and 
religious  interests  of  the  nations,  and  the  temporal 
and  eternal  interests  of  our  race,  are  calling  aloud 
lo  heaven  ? 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  105 

If  SO,  with  a  slight  variation,  mine  will  be  the  lan- 
guage of  the  pious  Jeremiah,  who  had  the  civil  and 
the  religious  welfare  of  his  people  equally  at  heart : 
O  that  ray  head  were  waters,  and  mine  eyes  a  foun- 
tain of  tears,  that  I  might  weep  day  and  night  for 
the  blindness  and  folly  of  my  people. 

My  letters  are  ended.  T  commit  them  to  you, 
Roman  Catholics,  and  to  the  blessing  of  Almighty 
God. 

With  great  respect,  yours, 

KiRWAN. 


BISHOP  HUGHES  CONFUTED. 


REPLY 


TO   THE 


RT.  REV.  JOHN  HUGHES, 


ROMAN  CATHOLIC  BISHOP  OF  NEW  YORK. 


BY 


THIRD    SERIES. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PRESBYTERIAN  BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION, 

NO.  265  CHESTNUT  STREET. 


CONTENTS. 


rAOB 
ISTRODUOTORY  NoT  .  .  •  t  .         •         •  •       5 

LETTER  I. 
Introduction — Free  discussion    important — Bp.   Hughes  conuxiencmg 
answering  before  reading  Kirwan — Excuse  for  the  charge  of  insin- 
eerity — Other  accounts  settled — Controversy  on  Romanism  among 
the  people — Object  of  these  letters      ..«..<.      7 

LETTER  IL 

Bishop  Hughes'  letters  characterized — Coolness  of  their  statement*— 
Their  argument  one  enforcing  despotism — The  principle  that  the  Bi- 
ble has  no  authority  but  what  the  church  gives  it,  and  that  it  mast 
be  undersood  as  the  cbarch  interprets  it,  examined     .  17 

LETTER  HL 
Examination  of  Chaicb  interpretation  continued  .        •        •        •        •    27 

LETTER  IV. 
Examination  of  Church  interpretation  continued — its  destructive  coa- 
sequences — It  is  •  monstrous  assumption 36 

LETTER  V. 

The  Papal  Church  theory — A  mistake  in  selecting  Peter  for  the  tiara 
—The  prayer  of  Christ  for  Peter  realized,  for  him  and  all  his  suo- 
oessors — The  question,  Was  Peter  pope  ?  examined    .        .        ♦        .    44 

LETTER  VI. 
Was  Peter  pope  1    examination  continued — But  two  arguments  that 
cannot  be  answered — Tillotsou's  opinion    ...•••    53 


4  COWTtrJTS. 

LETTER  VII 
Papal  claim  to  infallibility  examined,  and  refuted  «...    90 

LETTER  Vin. 

The  assertion  that  there  are  but  two  principles,  authority  and  reason,  for 
the  determining  of  Uie  meaning  of  Scripture,  examined  and  coafoted     71 

LETTER  IX. 
The  Bishop's  six  letters  to  Kirwan  reviewed  .        ....    €8 

LETTER  X. 
Ao  appeal  to  all  Roman  Catholics         *.•••.,    OS 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTE. 


When  I  ended  my  First  Series  of  letters  to 
Bishop  Hughes,  I  hoped  and  thought  that  my  part  in 
the  Romish  controversy  was  also  ended.  Appeals, 
however,  were  made  to  me  that  I  could  not  resist, 
for  a  new  series,  in  the  manner  and  spirit  of  tlie 
first.  I  yielded ;  and  hence  the  Second  Series. 
Pledging  myself  not  to  reply  to  any  attacks  made 
upon  my  letters,  save  by  him  to  whom  they  were 
addressed,  and  feeling,  for  reasons  stated,  that  he 
would  not  reply,  I  again  supposed  my  work  ended. 
But  contrary  to  my  expectations,  the  bishop  twice 
attempted  a  reply,  and  with  what  spirit  and  success 
I  need  not  inform  the  public.  His  first  letters  are 
as  feeble  as  could  be  desired  ;  his  second  are  in  the 
very  worst  spirit  even  of  Popery,  whose  very  best 
>;pirit  has  but  little  to  recommend  it.  The  feeble- 
ness of  the  first  letters  to  Dear  Reader,  and  the  low 
|)ersonalities,  not  to  say  vulgarities  of  those  addressed 
to  Kirwan,  reveal  the  true  character  of  the  author. 
They  might  be  published  by  Protestants  in  a  sepa- 
rate volume,  which  might  be  truly  entitled,  "  Bishop 
Hughes  Unmasked."  Those  letters  are  reviewed 
in  the  following  pages. 

1* 


6  INTRODUCTORY    NOTE. 

My  objections  to  the  system  of  Popery  are  stated 
in  my  first  and  second  series.  They  have  not  been 
answered ;  nor  will  they  soon  be.  The  bishop's  rea- 
sons for  adherence  to  the  Catholic  Church  are  re- 
viewed and  confuted  in  the  present  series.  The 
present  series  pulls  up  the  Upas  tree  by  the  roots ; 
the  former  series  lopped  off  its  baleful  branches; 
together  they  lay  down  the  rootless,  branchless 
trunk  upon  the  earth  to  rot. 

The  arguments  of  these  letters  are  not,  of  course, 
new.  All  that  I  have  attempted  to  do  is  to  strip  the 
controversy  of  its  learned  heaviness  ;  by  recasting 
and  simplifying,  to  bring  it  down  to  the  comprehen- 
sion of  the  common  mind,  and  thus  to  prepare  a 
Manual  on  the  subject  adapted  to  universal  circula- 
tion. Such  a  manual,  unless  I  mistake,  was  greatly 
needed  by  Papists  and  Protestants, 

I  commit  these  letters  to  the  kind  care  of  God. 
May  His  Spirit  accompany  their  circulation,  and 
render  them  instrumental  "  in  lifting  up  from  the 
world  one  of  its  heaviest  curses." 

KiRWAN. 
NeiD-York,  Septeir\ber,  1848. 


KIRWAK'S  REPLY 

TO    TEE 

RIGHT    REV.    JOHN    HUGHES, 

BISHOP  OF  NEW-YORK. 


LETTER  I. 

iQtrodaction — Free  discussion  important — Bp.  Hughes  commencing  answeiv 
ing  before  reading  Kirwan — Excuse  for  the  charge  of  insincerity — Other 
accounts  settled — Controversy  on  Romanism  among  tiie  people — Object 
of  these  letters. 

My  dear  Sir, — Contrary  to  all  my  expectations, 
an'd  in  the  face  of  the  excuses  which  I  made  for 
your  silence,  you  have  resolved,  at  length,  to  notice 
the  "  Letters  "  which  I  have  addressed  to  you.  The 
fact  gives  me  unfeigned  pleasure.  It  is  hailed  by 
all  those  interested  in  the  development  of  truth,  and 
in  the  exposure  of  error  and  imposture,  as  an  omen 
of  good.  Had  you  been  silent  on  the  subject  of  those 
letters  so  would  I  have  been.  They  were  assailed 
by  some  of  your  papers  and  priests  throughout  the 
country,  in  a  manner  at  once  low  and  rude ;  but  I 
made  no  reply.  I  was  pledged  to  suffer  the  assaults  of 
such  assailants  to  pass  unnoticed.     You,  sir,  well 


8  kirwan's  reply 

know  that  by  multitudes  who  wear  the  garments  of 
religion,  there  are  no  manifestations  of  its  grace, — 
that  many,  in  religious  controversy,  esteem  vulgar 
weapons  the  most  effectual ;  and  that  many  treat  an 
opponent  whose  arguments  they  cannot  refute,  as 
did  the  Jews  the  Saviour  in  the  palace  of  the  High 
Priest,  who  "  spit  in  his  face,  and  buffeted  him,  and 
smote  him  with  the  palms  of  their  hands."  In  argu- 
ments like  these,  your  priests,  especially  those  im- 
ported from  Ireland,  are  well  versed.  Nor  would  it 
be  any  serious  disadvantage  to  the  cause  of  Protest- 
antism if  such  arguments  were  confined  to  them. 
Separating  yourself  from  the  priests  over  whom  you 
flourish  your  crook  as  chief  shepherd,  1  stated  in  one 
of  my  letters  that  should  you  reply,  you  "  would 
reply  as  a  scholar  and  a  gentleman."  In  the  same 
letter  I  also  stated  to  you,  that  if  you  could  secure 
time  enough  from  your  varied  occupations  to  reply 
to  some  of  my  objections  which  forbid  my  return  to 
your  church,  "  there  was  one  at  least  that  would 
read  your  reply  with  great  pleasure."  And  whilst 
disappointed  at  the  want  of  scholar-like  and  gentle- 
manly bearing  of  your  letters,  I  have  yet  hailed  them 
and  read  them  with  pleasure. 

The  history  of  the  world,  and  of  the  progress  of 
truth,  clearly  prove  the  exceeding  importance  of  free 
discussion.  From  such  discussion,  conducted  in  a 
right  spirit,  nothing  can  suffer  but  error  and  impos- 
ture. This  Protestantism  courts,  and  Popery  con- 
demns where  the  power  is  in  her  hands.     If  you  and 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  9 

I,  sir,  lived  in  Austria,  Spain,  Sicily,  or  in  the 
States  of  the  Church,  your  reply  to  my  letters  might 
come,  not  in  the  Freeman's  Journal,  but  in  the  way 
of  a  warrant  through  the  civil  magistrate  for  my 
imprisonment  or  banishment  as  a  heretic.  But  here 
we  can  have  free  discussion  to  the  full ;  and  how- 
ever you  or  your  people  may  feel  on  the  subject,  I 
am  persuaded  that  Protestants  are  resolved  to  use 
their  privilege.  And  could  your  people  think,  and 
read,  and  believe,  and  act  for  themselves,  without 
any  of  the  terrors  or  trammels  which  your  system 
casts  around  them,  I  feel  persuaded  that  two  gener- 
ations would  reduce  the  spiritual  power  of  the  pope 
your  master  to  a  yet  lower  point  than  that  to  which 
his  temporal  power  has  fallen.  Hence  I  hail  your 
letters  as  an  advance  toward  free  discussion,  which 
has  ever  been  the  desire  of  Protestants,  because  of 
its  tendency  to  the  development  of  truth. 

Permit  me,  in  the  briefest  manner,  and  before  I 
proceed  to  other  statements,  to  allude  to  a  few  things 
in  your  introductory  letter.  Some  of  them  to  me, 
and  to  many  of  your  readers,  appear  singular 
enough. 

You  begin  by  saying  that  3^ou  have  "  seen  a 
certain  work  announced  and  much  lauded  in  the 
papers,  entitled  "  Kirwan's  Letters  to  Bishop  Hughes. 
I  have  not  read  these  letters,  though  I  have  twice 
attempted  to  do  so."  And  yet  in  the  subsequent 
paragraphs  of  this  letter  you  seem  to  know  that 
Kirwan  has  treated  you  with  personal  respect — that 


10 

he  imputes  to  you  a  want  of  sincerity  in  the  pro- 
fession of  the  Catholic  faith — that  his  letters  have 
attracted  attention  "  by  a  sprightliness  of  style  in 
assailino;  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church,  which 
renders  them  a  pleasing  contrast  to  the  filthy  vo- 
lumes that  have  been  written  on  the  same  side,  and 
on  the  same  subject," — you  seem  to  know  "  the 
great  topics  which  Kirwan  has  discussed,"  and  that 
"  he  has  published  reasons  for  having  left  the  Catho- 
lic Church  and  for  refusing  to  return."  And  for 
these  letters,  which  you  so  well  understand  without 
having  ever  read  them,  you  resolve  to  put  forth  an 
antidote  !  Now,  sir,  you  either  read  Kirwan's  Let- 
ters, or  you  did  not  read  them ;  if  you  read  them 
why  deny  it  ?  if  you  did  not  read  them,  how  caine 
you  by  such  an  accurate  knowledge  of  their  con- 
tents, and  of  their  spirit  ?  And  has  the  world  ever 
heard  or  read  of  a  man  seriously  undertaking  to 
reply  to  a  book  which  he  has  not  read  ?  For  your 
own  sake,  sir,  I  wish  all  your  assumed  carelessness 
here  had  more  of  an  air  of  truthfulness  ;  for  there 
is  not  a  man  in  or  out  of  your  church  who  reads, 
your  letter  who  will  not  say  that  you  either  read 
Kirwan's  Letters,  or  that  you  had  them  read  to  you. 
And  there  was  no  need  of  exposing  yourself  to  such 
an  imputation  for  the  unworthy  purpose  of  express- 
ino-  your  contempt.  I  disclaim  every  thing  person- 
ally offensive  to  yourself  when  I  say  that,  as  to 
truthfulness,  papal  priests  have  but  little  capital  on 
which  to  trade,  and  that  they  should  be  very  spar- 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  11 

ing  of  what   the}^  have.     They  are  already  trem- 
blmg  on  the  verge  of  bankruptcy. 

You  also  complain  that  I  do  you  great  mjustice 
by  imputing  to  you  a  want  of  sincerity  in  your  pro- 
fession of  belief  in  the  Catholic  faith.  1  felt  when 
I  made  it.  and  now  feel,  that  the  imputation  is  a 
serious  one.  And  yet  I  knew  not  how  to  withhold  it ; 
nor  do  I  know  now  how  to  withdraw  it.  I  can  make 
vast  allowances  for  ignorance  ;  but  you  are  not  an 
ignorant  man.  So  I  can  make  great  allowance  for 
the  prejudices  of  early  training,  and  for  the  in- 
fluences of  a  narrow  and  bigoted  education  when 
so  conducted  as  to  fill  the  mind,  not  with  knowledge, 
but  with  error  and  superstition.  But  thus,  unless 
tl  am  misinformed,  you  have  not  been  trained  or 
educated.  I  can  also  make  allowance  for  well  edu- 
cated and  well  disciplined  minds  that  have  always 
been  excluded  from  contact  with  minds  holding  op- 
posite sentiments  ;  and  that  are  unaccustomed  to 
hear  questioned  the  truth  of  their  opinions  ;  but  this 
is  not  your  case.  You  are  no  stranger  to  polite 
society — to  the  company  of  educated  men.  You 
well  know  that  the  doctrines  peculiar  to  your  church 
are  rejecied  as  not  only  unscriptural,  but  as  unrea- 
sonable, and  as  absurd,  by  the  great  mass  of  the 
educated  mind  of  our  world.  And  how  to  account 
for  your  professed  belief  in  them  I  knew  not,  and 
now  know  not.  The  thing  came  up  before  my 
mind  in  this  wise  :  Does  Bishop  Hughes  believe 
that  a  mass  mumbled  over,  for  half  a  dollar,  will 


12  kirwan's  reply 

avail  in  getting  a  soul  out  of  purgatory  ?  docs  he 
believe  that  a  little  wafer  made  of  flour  is  converted 
into  the  real  l)ody  and  blood  of  Christ,  by  his  conse- 
cration of  it  ?  Does  he  believe  that  he  can  send  a 
man  to  heaven  by  rubbing  him  with  a  little  olive  oil 
when  dying  ?  If  he  believes  in  these  things  he  is  a 
dunce  ;  but  he  is  not  a  dunce  ;  therefore  he  does 
not  believe  them.  This,  sir,  I  frankly  tell  you,  was 
the  train  of  thought  which  led  me  to  the  conclusion 
of  which  you  complain  as  an  injurious  imputation. 
There  was  no  alternative  for  me  but  to  question 
your  sense  or  your  sincerity ;  and  I  preferred  the 
latter  as  on  the  whole  the  most  pleasing  to  yourself. 
I  do  not  know  that  there  is  a  livins;  man  who  would 
not  prefer  to  be  called  a  knave  rather  than  a  fool. 
The  first  simply  implies  a  sinful  misdirection  of  his 
sense,  and  may  be  the  imputation  of  selfishness  or 
malice  ;  the  other  is  a  denial  that  he  has  any  sense. 
So  that  the  imputation,  instead  of  "  betraying  the 
evil  effects  of  my  Presbyterian  training,"  exhibits 
rather  "  the  generous  instincts  of  my  Irish  nature  " 
in  making  for  you  the  best  apology  that  the  case 
would  admit. 

I  think,  sir,  your  friends  will  regret  the  whole 
tone  of  your  introductory  letter,  considering  the 
courtesy  which  I  observed  towards  you.  It  exhi- 
bits a  spirit  unworthy  of  a  bishop.  You  could  con- 
tinue in  silence  without  any  one  having  a  right  to 
impugn  your  motives  ;  but  when  you  came  forward 
to  reply  you  should  have  exhibited  less  irritation. 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES.  13 

I  am  sorry  that  my  letters  vexed  if  they  failed  to 
convert  you.  Your  conjecture  and  mistake,  as  to 
my  name,  might  have  been  omitted.  Your  regretg 
over  my  Irish  birth  are  ludicrous ;  your  saying 
that  you  would  rather  I  had  been  any  body  else'a 
countryman  than  yours  is  probably  among  the 
ti'uest  things  you  have  said.  You  know  not  why 
I  directed  my  letters  to  you  ;  this  is  owing  to  the 
fact  that  you  commenced  answering  before  reading 
them.  You  assert,  as  far  as  you  know,  that  the 
public  never  asked  for  my  reasons  for  leaving  your 
church.  Had  I  recently  gone  to  confession  to  you, 
you  might  think  differently.  You  say  it  is  a  matter 
of  the  least  importance  to  Catholics  whether  I  re- 
turn or  not.  It  is  very  likely  that  the  sun  would 
rise  and  set  without  either  of  us ;  it  certainly  did 
so  before  we  were  born,  and  may  continue  to  do 
so  after  we  are  dead.  It  is  not  wise,  even  for  a 
bishop,  to  indulge  the  conceit  that  the  sun  rises  in 
his  mouth  and  sets  at  his  feet.  But  all  this,  sir,  is 
aside  from  the  great  object  of  my  letters ;  it  is  the 
argumentum  ad  invidiam,  and  is  unworthy  of  you 
and  of  me.  If  my  object  in  my  letters  to  you — or 
your  object  in  the  letters  of  which  you  make  mine 
the  occasion — i)r  the  object  of  these  letters  in  reply 
to  yours,  is  obtained,  ^Ye  must  omit  personalities, 
and  seek  solely  and  only  the  truth.  The  truth 
only  is  worthy  the  pursuit  of  high-minded  and 
Christian  men. 

You  say,  and  truly,   that  the  public   mind  is 
2 


14  kirwan's  reply 

awake  to  the  relative  positions  of  the  Catholic  and 
Protestant  churches.    This  is  emphatically  so.    Con- 
troversies  which   hitherto   have   been   confined   to 
universities  and  ecclesiastics  are  now  down  among 
the  people.     Even  the  Italian  mind,  which  the  evil 
influences  of  your  church  have  almost  extinguished, 
is  questioning  the  truth  of  your  dogmas  and  forms, 
and   is   breathing   after   emancipation  from   them. 
Catholic  Germany  is  in  agitation,  and  the  aid  of 
princes  is  invoked  to  prevent  the  people  from  be- 
coming Protestant.     The  entire  Catholic  world   is 
in  commotion,  seeking   to   break   the  fetters  wiih 
which  your  popes  and   priests   have  bound  it  for 
ages.     In  this  land  of  our  adoption  all  minds  are 
using  the   privilege  of  thinking  freely  secured  to 
them ;    and   where    there   is   one   Protestant    that 
passes  over  to  your  church,  there  are  fifty  Papists 
who  become   Protestants.     Your   people   begin   to 
feel    that    they   have    permitted   their   mercenary 
priests  to  think  for  them  long  enough  ;  they  now 
commence   thinking   for    themselves.     And   I    am 
pleased  to  inform  you  that  even  Kirwan's  Letters 
have  been  eagerly  sought  for  by  many  of  them, 
and  have  been  blessed  to  the  hopeful  conversion  of 
not  a  few.     You  say  the  Catholic  religion  is  now 
looked  upon   with   less  disfavor  than  formerly.     I 
am  persuaded,  sir,  that  you  mistake  upon  this  sub- 
ject.    Controversy  has  assumed  a  kinder  tone,  and 
efforts  are  put  forth  in  a  more  quiet  and  Christian 
way  than  formerly  ;  but  the  mind  of  the  world  and 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  15 

its  piety  were  never  more  intently  engaged  for  the 
overthrow  of  Popery,  than  at  the  present  hour. 
You,  sir,  are  regarded  as  at  the  head  of  a  political 
party — you  are  regarded  as  carrying  the  vote  of 
the  papal  Irish  in  your  pocket.  Papists,  even  here, 
are  regarded  as  so  wedded  to  the  pope,  as  to  be 
willing  to  cast  their  vote  for  the  party  that  praises 
him  loudest.  These,  sir,  are  the  reasons  why  you 
misread  the  attentions  which  are  paid  yourself,  and 
the  eulogies  which  are  pronounced  on  the  pope. 
Some  of  the  very  men  that  flatter  you  in  public, 
and  that  applaud  the  pope  in  the  Tabernacle,  con- 
temn you  in  their  hearts,  and  pray  at  their  family 
altars  that  popish  superstition  may  come  to  a  per- 
petual end.     And  you  well  know  it  all. 

Yet,  sir,  there  is  an  excitement  on  the  public 
mind  which  will  secure  a  readins;  for  what  vou  or 
I  may  say,  kindly  and  intelligently,  as  to  Popery  or 
Protestantism.  I  have  stated  my  objections  to  your 
church.  It  is  a  matter  of  public  regret  that  you 
Lave  not  resolved  to  meet  and  obviate  them.  You 
have  marked  out,  however,  your  own  course ;  you 
have  attempted  to  show  the  reasons  why  no  Catho- 
lic should  forsake  his  church,  and  why  all  Pro- 
testants should  seek  her  communion  as  soon  as 
possible.  It  will  be  my  pleasure  to  follow  you  step 
by  step,  and  to  show  the  utter  truthlessness  of  every 
argument  you  have  adduced  to  show  that  yours  is 
the  one,  holy,  catholic  and  apostolical  church,  out 
of  whose  communion  there  is  no  salvation.     This 


16  kirwan's  reply 

no  man  has  ever  yet  succeeded  in  doing.  Can  you 
hope  to  be  successful  where  others,  more  learned, 
more  acute,  and  less  burdened  with  duties,  have 
failed  ? 

My  objections  to  your  church  are  before  the 
world.  They  stand  there,  abused,  but  unanswered. 
This  is  one  point  gained.  It  will  be  gaining  an- 
other if  1  can  show  the  baselessness  of  every  argu- 
ment you  use  to  bind  your  people  to  it,  and  to 
induce  others  to  enter  it.  To  do  this  will  be  my 
objject  in  the  following  letters. 

Yours, 

KiRWAN. 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES.  17 


LETTER  II. 

Bishop  Hughes'  letters  characterized — Coolness  of  their  statements — Their 
argument  one  enforcing  despotism — The  principle  that  the  Bible  has  no 
authority  but  what  the  church  gives  it,  and  that  it  must  be  undersood  as 
the  church  interprets  it,  examined. 

My  dear  Sir, — I  now  proceed  to  the  examina- 
tion of  the  letters  which  you  have  addressed  to  a 
"  Dear  Reader,"  and  of  which  mine  to  you  have 
been  the  occasion.  I  have  taken  the  stand  point 
outside  your  church  which  you  requested  your 
"  Reader "  to  take,  and  there  I  have  considered 
and  inwardly  digested  them.  My  views  in  refer- 
ence to  them  I  will  now  frankly  and  candidly  give 
to  you  and  to  the  public.  And  if  a  word  or  senti- 
ment shall  escape  me,  not  essential  to  my  main 
object,  that  will  give  you  pain,  I  beg  you  to  charge 
it  to  the  account  of  that  frailty  of  our  common 
natures  from  which  alas !  neither  Peter  nor  his  suc- 
cessors were,  or  are  exempt. 

These  letters  give  the  old  statement  about  the 
papal  being  the  only  true  church,  and  in  the  old 
way ;  a  statement  which  has  been  better  made 
very  many  times.  There  is  an  utter  absence  from 
it  of  freshness ;  it  is  a  mere  distillation  from  other 

2* 


IS  kirwan's  reply 

minds  wonderfully  weakened  in  the  process.  Out 
of  the  old  beaten  track  of  Christ  appointing  apostles 
and  making  Peter  their  pope — of  giving  to  them, 
and  especially  to  him,  the  keys  of  the  kingdom, 
you  seem  unable  to  take  a  step.  And  you  present 
the  argument,  if  it  can  be  so  called,  in  the  weakest 
and  dullest  form  that  I  have  yet  seen  it.  How  to 
account  for  this — whether  on  the  ground  of  an 
over-estimate  of  your  talents,  or  that  you  are  rea- 
soning against  your  own  interior  convictions — I 
know  not.  Although  comparatively  unknown,  and 
with  but  little  general  reputation  at  stake,  I  would 
not  be  the  author  of  them  for  your  crook,  keys, 
and  mitre. 

A  remarkable  feature  of  these  letters  is  the  cool- 
ness and  confidence  with  which  their  statements 
are  made.  These  statements  have  been  logically 
and  theologically  refuted  very  many  times  ;  and 
yet  you  reproduce  them  with  as  much  composure  as 
if  they  were  the  utterance  of  the  divine  Spirit ;  as 
if  they  were  not  the  merest,  and  some  of  them  the 
most  foolish  assumptions.  The  argument  of  asser- 
tion is  one  in  which  your  church  is  very  powerful, 
because  with  a  certain  order  of  mind  it  is  so  potent. 
With  many  it  is  sufficient  to  know  that  the  pope, 
the  bishop  or  the  priest  says  so.  And  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  conjecture  what  those  may  not  say  who 
affirm  that  they  can  change  a  little  wafer  made  of 
flour  into  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  But 
you,  sir,  should  know  that  you  live  not  in  the  age 


TO   BISHOP    HUGHES.  19 

of  Thomas  Aquinas,  and  that  you  are  read  by  in- 
creasing multitudes  in  your  own  church,  with  whon\ 
assertion  is  simply  assertion. 

The  argument  of  these  letters  is  one  maintaining 
and  enforcing  ecclesiastical  despotism.  Christ  ap- 
pointed apostles — over  the  twelve  he  placed  Peter 
as  pope — to  these  and  their  successors  he  gave  the 
government  of  the  church  in  all  ages  and  countries ; 
— and  the  power  of  the  keys  to  admit  or  to  exclude, 
to  bind  or  to  loose,  as  they  might  deem  meet.  And 
all  who  submit  not  to  this  external  arrangement 
which  you  call  "  the  body  of  the  Church,"  must  be 
both  to  God  and  to  the  church  as  heathen  and  pub- 
licans. If  this  argument  is  true  then  there  is  not  a 
man  on  earth  who  can  be  saved,  however  he  may 
submit  to  the  yoke  of  Christ,  unless,  in  addition,  he 
puts  on  the  yoke  of  the  pope.  And  yet  the  gospel 
is  called  a  "  law  of  liberty  ;"  and  the  generous  and 
warm-hearted  Peter,  who,  although  according  to 
your  showing  the  first  pope,  yet  wore  no  shackles, 
declares,  "  of  a  truth  I  perceive  that  God  is  no 
respecter  of  persons,  but  in  every  nation  he  that 
feareth  him,  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  accepted 
of  him."  Sir,  the  monstrous  conclusion  to  which 
it  leads  proves  your  argument  to  be  a  monstrous 
one  ;  and  that  argument  is  put  forth  at  a  time  when 
the  divine  right  of  kings  and  priests  to  enslave  the 
nations,  civilly  and  spiritually,  is  passing  away  like 
the  foam  upon  the  waters,  before  the  indignant 
scorn  of  the   world !     The   fate   of  the   doctrine 


20  kirwjin's  reply 

of  divine  right  to  hold  in  bondage  the  bodies  and 
souls  of  men,  as  held  by  kings  and  papal  priests, 
reached  this  country  about  the  commencement  of 
last  Lent,  when  your  letters  died.  I  have  some- 
times thought  that  a  coroner's  jury  empanneled  to 
investigate  the  cause  of  the  death  of  your  letters 
would  render  the  following  verdict :  "  Died  because 
of  the  gracious  visitation  of  Almighty  God  upon  the 
doctrine  of  divine  right,  as  held  by  kings  and  popes 
and  bishops  and  other  inferior  clergy,  which  has 
recently  taken  place  in  Europe." 

But  I  pass  from  the  general  impressions  made  by 
the  perusal  of  your  lettei's  to  the  consideration  of 
their  statements.  You  will  remember  that  my 
work  is  not  to  prove  any  thing  save  the  utter  truth- 
lessness  of  your  positions.  Your  numbered  para- 
graphs are  like  stones  in  a  pile,  in  contact,  but 
without  any  logical  arrangement  or  connection.  I 
will  cull  from  them  your  main  principles,  and  will 
seek  to  show  you  that  they  are  the  merest  papal 
assumptions.  In  doing  this  I  will  not  confine  myself 
to  your  arrangement,  nor  yet  to  your  language  or 
method  of  argumentation.  I  will  even  give  to  your 
principles  the  advantage  of  the  better  statement 
made  of  them  by  standard  papal  authors  ;  as  I  truly 
believe  that  nothing  is  finally  lost  by  fairness. 

1.  You  assert  that  the  Bible  has  no  authority  save 
what  your  church  gives  it,  and  that  it  must  he  under- 
stood and  received  as  your  church  interprets  it.  And 
you  flout  private  interpretation  as  the  root  of  all 


TO    BISHOP    HUGFES.  21 

heresy,  and  of  all  evil.  Although  this  is  not  among 
your  first  postulates,  I  select  it  as  the  first  for  exa- 
mination, because  of  its  fundamental  importance. 
If  I  have  no  right  to  read,  or  interpret  the  Bible,  or 
to  deduce  from  a  single  passage  of  it  a  meaning 
differing  from  that  which  your  church  puts  upon  it, 
then  controversy  is  ended.  I  am  shut  up  either  to 
return  to  holy  mother  or  to  go  to  hell.  Now,  sir, 
as  by  the  grace  of  God  I  intend  to  do  neither  the 
one  or  the  other,  I  will  show  you  that  the  principle 
above  asserted  is  a  false  assumption.  To  be  sure 
it  is  not  yours,  nor  Milner's,  nor  Hay's  merely,  it 
is  asserted  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  all  are 
cursed  who  refuse  to  receive  it. 

The  first  question  1  wish  to  ask  is,  where  is  the 
authority  you  claim  for  your  church,  given  her  ? 
Upon  this  point  I  must  have  proof  beyond  question. 
Do  you  assert  the  need  of  an  infallible  interpreter 
of  the  will  of  God  ?  Such  an  one  would  be  con- 
venient ; — but  where  is  such  need  asserted  ? — where 
is  such  an  interpreter  appointed  ?  If  you  point  me 
to  a  passage  of  Scripture  you  admit  my  right  of 
pivate  interpretation,  for  I  must  exercise  my  judg- 
ment to  decide  whether  it  is  or  is  not  to  the  point. 
If  you  tell  me  that  uniform  tradition  asserts  the 
possession  of  this  authority  by  the  church,  how  do 
I  know  that  your  tradition  is  true  ?  Your  church 
has  corrupted  the  written  words ; — hence  I  may 
infer,  that  if  there  is  any  such  thing  as  unwritten 
tradition  she  has  corrupted  that  also. 


22  kirwan's  reply 

The  Scriptures,  you  say  (No.  10),  owe  to  your 
church  their  character  for  authenticity  and  inspira- 
tion. How  is  this  ?  The  Old  Testament  was  com- 
pleted, and  was  in  use  hundreds  of  years  before  the 
coming  of  Christ; — the  Evangelists  and  Apostles 
who  wrote  the  New  Testament  were  inspired  so  to 
do  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  These  things  are  capable 
of  the  fullest  proof — nor  would  their  proof  be 
weakened  a  hair,  if  the  whole  papal  church  were 
swallowed  up  with  the  company  of  "  Core."  Why 
is  the  Bible  more  tliaii  any  other  ancient  book  in- 
debted to  your  church  for  its  character  ?  Do  we 
not  prove  the  Apocryphal  books  uninspired  which 
your  church  places  in  the  Canon  ? — and  with  equal 
facility  could  we  not  prove  the  Epistles  of  Paul  to 
be  inspired  if  your  church  had  taught  otherwise  ? 
Do  we  not,  with  the  utmost  facility,  show  all  your 
corruptions  of  Christianity  and  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  separate  the  false  from  the  true  as  easily  as 
does  the  husbandman  the  chaff  from  the  wheat  ? 

The  Scriptures,  as  we  possess  them,  existed  be- 
fore the  rise  of  your  church — before  a  general  coun- 
cil ever  commenced — before  a  declaration  was  ever 
made  by  a  council  as  to  the  canon  of  Scripture. 
Any  such  declaration  must  be  founded  on  antece- 
dent evidence.  And  unless  such  evidence  existed 
previous  to  the  declaration  of  it — the  declaration  it- 
self is  a  falsehood.  Let  it  then  be  granted  that  we 
have  no  evidence  of  the  truth  of  Scripture  save  what 
the  Church  of  Rome  gives  us,  and  the  whole  fabric 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  23 

of  Christianity  totters  to  its  base.  Are  you  prepared 
for  this  result  ?  or  would  you  rather  sustain  Popery 
than  Christianity  ? 

Truth  is  the  great  object  proposed  by  God  to  our 
belief.  Religious  differs  from  other  truth  only  in 
its  superior  importance.  All  truths  in  the  universe 
are  connected  together,  and  make  an  harmonious 
whole.  They  strengthen  and  fortify  each  other. 
And  as  God  proposes  truth  to  our  belief,  he  has  en- 
dowed us  with  minds  capable  of  examining  the 
claims  of  all  things  soliciting  our  belief,  and  has 
surrounded  us  with  motives  ever  impelling  us  to 
seek  and  to  love  the  truth.  We  have  in  the  works 
of  God  the  evidences  of  his  eternal  power  and  God- 
head— we  have  in  his  word  the  more  full  revelation 
of  his  will.  And  he  has  so  formed  us  that  we  can- 
not believe  without  proof,  and  that  we  cannot  reject 
with.  At  least  I  know  of  no  way  of  doing  other- 
wise save  by  turning  Papist.  Now  why  should  the 
Bible  be  exempted  from  the  general  law  which  rules 
my  acceptance  of  all  truth  ?  Whilst  permitted  to 
think  for  myself  on  all  other  subjects,  why  should  I 
be  forbidden  to  investigate  the  Scriptures  for  my- 
self ?  Why  bound  up  to  believe  them  only  as  your 
church  interprets  them  ?  Sir,  there  must  be  some 
priestly  device  at  the  bottom  of  all  this.  As  reason- 
ably might  your  church  forbid  me  to  believe  any 
thing  in  asti'onomy,  or  in  physical  or  moral  philoso- 
phy, contrary  to  her  teaching,  as  forbid  me  to  receive 
the  Bible  save  in  the  sense  which  she  gives  it.   And 


24  kirwan's  reply 

you  remember  she  sent  Galileo  to  prison  for  teach- 
ins  that  the  earth  moves  around  the  sun. 

I  must  believe  the  Scriptures  only  in  the  sense  of 
your  church — "  holy  mother  !"  But  who  is  she  ? 
where  is  her  residence  ?  You  define  her,  in  a  con- 
troversy with  a  late  distinguished  divine,  to  be  "  the 
visible  society  of  Christians,  composed  of  the  people 
who  are  taught  and  the  pastors  who  teach,  by  vir- 
tue of  a  certain  divine  commission  recorded  in  the 
28th  of  Matthew,  addressed  to  the  Apostles  and  their 
legitimate  successors  until  the  end  of  the  world." 
So  that  the  people  and  their  pastors  constitute  "  holy 
mother  church;"  and  "  holy  mother "  is  the  rule 
of  faith.  So  that  "  holy  mother  "  is  the  rule  of 
*'  holy  mother  ;"  that  is,  the  venerable  and  fretful 
old  lady  wills  as  she  wishes,  and  does  as  she  wills ! 
Has  not  this  been  very  much  so  ? 

But  the  people  and  their  pastors  form  the  church, 
and  the  church  is  the  rule  of  faith  !  And  yet  the 
people  and  their  true  pastors,  those  who  daily  labor 
among  them,  visiting  their  sick,  and  burying  their 
dead,  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  rule.  The  au- 
thoritative meaning  of  Scripture  is  declared  by  your 
bishops,  and  even  of  these  not  one  in  ten  has  any 
thinjT  to  do  with  it.  What,  for  instance,  have  vou 
to  do  with  it  ?  Practically  it  is  in  the  hands  of  the 
pope  and  his  cardinals.  So  that  "  holy  mother,''  the 
rule  of  faith,  is  made  up  of  a  few  holy  fathers,  many 
of  whom  as  to  sense  are  the  merest  drivelers,  and 
as  to  morals  the  merest  debauchees  !    Now,  sir,  if 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  25 

I  go  to  these  holy  fathers y  who,  individually,  are 
men,  but  who,  unitedly,  are  "  holy  mother,'"  for  the 
sense  of  Scripture,  must  not  my  religion  be  based 
upon  man  ?  And  from  building  upon  such  men  I 
am  compelled  to  cry  out  in  the  language  of  the  Li- 
tany, "  may  the  good  Lord  deliver  me." 

But  admitting,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that 
I  am  bound  to  receive  the  Scriptures  as  your  church 
interprets  them,  then  will  you  answer  me  a  few 
questions  ?  How  am  I  to  obtain  her  sense  of  them  ? 
On  the  greater  part  of  the  Scriptures  she  has  given 
forth  no  binding  interpretation.  At  what  period  of 
the  life  of  holy  mother  am  I  most  likely  to  get  a 
true  interpretation  ?  Is  it  when  she  was  Arian  with 
Pope  Liberius  ?  or  when  she  was  pagan  with  Mar- 
eellinus  ?  or  when  she  was  Pelagian  with  Pope 
Clement  XI  ?  or  when  she  was  infidel  with  Leo  X  ? 
or  when  strumpets  were  her  waiting  maids  with 
John  XII  and  Alexander  ?  or  is  it  when  she  was 
drunk  with  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  ?  or  when  rival 
popes  were  tearing  out  each  other's  bowels  ?  or  is  it 
when  in  the  height  of  her  charity  she  was  thunder- 
ing her  curses  from  Trent  against  all  who  refused 
to  say  Amen  to  her  decisions  1  These,  sir,  are  very 
important  questions  to  be  answered,  as  I  may  be 
Arian,  Pelagian,  or  infidel,  a  Calvinist,  or  an  Armi- 
nian,  according  to  the  time  I  seek  from  holy  mother 
her  interpretations  of  the  word  of  God.  Perhaps 
my  reverence  for  the  venerable  old  lady,  now  in  her 
WTinkles  and  dotage,  might  be  greater  than  it  is, 

3 


26  kirwan's  reply 

were  it  not  for  my  sense  of  her  dissolute  and  change- 
ful life. 

But  I  find  I  have  finished  a  letter  without  finish- 
ing my  analysis  of  the  principle  under  examination. 
1  will  resume  it  in  my  next. 

Yours,  &c., 

KiRWAN. 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  .27 


LETTER  III. 

Examination  of  Church  interpretation  continued. 

My  dear  Sir, — In  my  last  letter  I  commenced, 
without  concluding,  an  examination  of  the  principle, 
that  the  Bible  has  no  authority  save  what  your  church 
gives  it,  and  that  it  must  he  understood  and  received 
as  your  church  interprets  it.  Upon  this  principle, 
sufficiently  disproved  by  the  considerations  already 
presented,  I  have  a  few  things  more  to  say. 

I  must  receive  the  Scriptures  in  the  sense  and 
meaning  which  your  church  gives  them  !  God  is 
my  father,  and  Jesus  Christ  is  my  Saviour  as  well  as 
yours.  His  word  is  a  revelation  of  his  will  to  me  as 
well  as  to  you,  or  as  to  any  body  of  men  upon  earth. 
"  God  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners  spake 
in  times  past  to  the  prophets,  and  in  these  last  days 
he  has  spoken  to  us  by  his  Son."  So  that  notwith- 
standing the  puerile  distinction,  unworthy  of  a  man 
of  sense,  you  make  (No.  40),  God  does  speak  to  me 
through  the  prophets,  and  his  Son,  in  his  word. 
And  yet  I  must  not  hear  him, — nor  consider  his  say- 
ings as  possessing  any  authority  or  meaning,  until 
holy  mother  gives  his  sayings  to  me  authority  and 
meaning  !     That  is,  1  must  hear  God  only  when  he 


28  KIRWAN  S   REPLY 

uses  the  lips  of  holy  mother  ;  lips  wliich  have  blis- 
tered under  the  curses  which  she  has  been  pronoun- 
cing against  me  for  ages !  Holy  mother,  sir,  in  the 
bloom  of  her  youth,  and  in  the  maturity  of  her  years, 
"  lived  deliciously  and  courted  kings  to  her  couch." 
But  hers  has  been  a  dissolute  life.  She  has  made 
the  earth  drunk  with  the  wine  of  her  fornication. 
And  although  in  her  wrinkles  and  dotage,  you  now 
tell  me  that  I  can  hear  God  only  through  her ;  and 
that  I  must  bow  my  ear  to  the  stream  of  her  fetid 
breath,  and  at  the  risk  of  all  your  curses,  learn  God's 
will  only  as  she  expounds  it !  If  such  a  claim,  calmly 
put  forth,  is  not  a  proof  of  dotage,  what  can  be  ? 
Bishop  Hughes,  how  old  are  you  ? 

But  why  bind  me  to  receive  the  Scriptures  only 
in  the  sense  which  your  church  gives  them  ?  How 
can  I  know  that  she  gives  them  a  correct  sense  ? 
Or  must  I  take  this  for  granted  ?  The  popes  are 
admitted  to  be  infallible.  So  are  the  bishops  ;  and 
so  are  general  councils.  Pope  has  contradicted 
pope — bishop,  bishop — and  council,  council.  Hov^r 
then  can  I  confide  in  their  interpretation  of  Scripture  ? 
How  can  I  be  infallibly  assured  that  any  other  man, 
or  body  of  men,  is  infallibly  qualified  to  guide  me 
into  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  ?  If  I,  Kirwan, 
reject  my  own  prayerfully  received  sense  of  Scrip- 
ture for  yours,  John  Hughes,  then  are  not  you  above 
the  Scriptures  to  me  ?  And  do  not  I  virtually  reject 
what  God  says^  for  what  you  say,  who  can  now  and 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES.  29 

then  turn  a  sharp  comer  and  leave  the  truth  behind 
you  ?     And  if  ihis  is  not  infidelity,  what  is  it  ? 

But  to  this  you  reply  that  I  must  not  look  to  your 
interpretation,  but,  as  says  the  creed  of  Pius  IV,  to 
*•'  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers."  But  here 
again,  the  "  private  reasoner  "  has  some  important 
questions  to  ask.  Who  are  the  Fathers?  Where 
or  with  whom  do  they  begin  or  end  ?  This  is  an 
unsettled  question.  Were  they  not  uninspired  men 
and  fallible  ?  This  is  admitted.  Origen,  among 
other  errors,  taught  Universalism.  Augustine  re- 
tracted his  errors.  Tertullian  was  a  Montanist. 
And  can  fallible  men  make  an  infallible  rule  ? 

Besides,  the  early  fathers  wrote  but  little  in  the 
way  of  Scriptural  interpretation.  If  any  thing,  we 
have  scarcely  any  thing  from  the  Fathers  before  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  ;  and  but  little,  save 
fragments,  of  the  first  three  centuries,  and  these  cor- 
rupted. And  what  we  have  from  those  early  times 
serves  no  purpose  in  settling  the  points  in  controversy. 
They  differed  widely  among  themselves, — some  of 
them  condemn  your  Apocrypha — some  of  them  your 
absurd  doctrine  of  transubstantiation.  And  yet 
whilst  these  fathers  were  fallible,  and  differed  among 
themselves — whilst  they  pointedly  condemn  in  some 
things  the  teachings  of  your  church,  and  wrote  but 
little  in  the  way  of  Scriptural  interpretation,  yet  we 
must  receive  the  Scriptures  "  according  to  the  unan- 
imous consent  of  the  Fathers."     Is  not  this  prepos- 


30  ktrwan's  reply 

terous  ?     Have  you  not  excommunicatec  your  com- 
moir  sense  and  reason  ? 

But,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  let  us  admit 
that  these  erring  and  contending  fathers  were  unaii- 
imous  in  their  support  of  the  distinguishing  doctrines 
of  your  church.  What,  then,  does  this  avail  ?  If 
unanimous  in  teaching  what  the  Scriptures  do  not, 
their  teaching  cannot  be  received;  ifin  what  the 
Scriptures  do  teach,  we  receive  that  without  them. 
Nor  is  unity  any  evidence  of  truth,  in  itself.  Men 
in  multitudes  have  been  united,  for  ages,  in  support- 
ing a  lie.  And  union  is  in  the  inverse  ratio  of 
knowledge.  The  more  perfect  the  ignorance,  other 
things  being  equal,  the  more  perfect  the  union. 
When  the  blind  lead  the  blind  they  cling  very  close 
together.  Individuals  in  full  vision  often  select  dif- 
ferent roads  to  the  same  place  ;  but  the  blind  crowd 
along  the  same  road,  and  cling  to  one  another  like 
swarming  bees,  even  on  the  brink  of  the  precipice. 
Hence  the  proverb,  "  if  the  blind  lead  the  blind  both 
will  fall  into  the  ditch."  And  if  the  successors  of 
Moses,  who  sat  in  his  seat,  and  boasted  that  they 
were  his  ecclesiastical  descendants,  were  blind  lead- 
ers of  the  blind  ;  may  it  not  be  possible  that  the 
same  may  be  the  case  as  to  the  descendants  of 
Peter  ?  Your  letters,  now  before  me,  give  the 
plainest  evidence  that  the  eyes  of  your  mind  stand 
in  great  neea  of  couching.  O  that  you  might  apply 
to  them  the  eye-salve  spoken  of  in  Revelation. 

But  you  reply,  this  is  forbidden  by  the  fact  that 


TO    BISHO?    HUGHES.  31 

your  bishops  are  the  descendants  of  Peter,  and  that 
they  have  the  promise  of  divine  guidance.  But 
they  are  no  more  the  descendants  of  Peter,  than  were 
the  Jewish  priests  the  descendants  of  Moses  and 
Aaron.  So  that  reasoning  from  the  one  to  the  other 
this  plea  avails  nothing.  "  We  be  Abraham's  seed," 
said  the  Jews.  "  If  ye  were  Abraham's  children  ye 
would  do  his  works,"  replied  the  Saviour.  "  We 
be  Moses'  disciples,"  cried  the  Pharisees.  "  Had  ye 
believed  Moses  ye  would  have  believed  me,"  says 
Christ.  And  it  is  surprising  that  a  man,  like  you, 
professing  to  be  a  master  in  Israel,  and  a  chief  pas- 
tor in  the  church  of  God,  could  for  a  moment  lose 
sight  of  the  palpable  truth  that  the  true  evidence  of 
apostolical  succession  is  apostolical  faith  and  prac- 
tice. In  your  fourth  letter,  (No.  41,)  you  speak  of 
Joanna  Southcote,  Joe  Smith,  and  father  Miller  with 
a  sneer ;  but,  sir,  the  most  absurd  absurdity  of  Joe 
Smith  was  clever  sense  when  compared  with  your 
principle  of  making  fallible  men  infallible  expound- 
ers of  God's  revealed  will,  and  sending  all  to  perdi- 
tion who  do  not  receive  their  unanimous  consent  as 
its  true  meaning,  when  no  such  consent  was  ever 
given,  or  can  be  found !  Sir,  Joe  Smith  was  much 
more  of  a  pope  than  you  imagine.  He  damned, 
as  unblushingly  as  you  or  holy  mother,  all  that  did 
no*  deem  him  and  his  cardinals  infallible,  and  that 
rejected  his  Mormon  tradition.  And  if  as  a  "  private 
reasoner  "  I  were  compelled  to  select  Joe  Smith  or 
John  Hughes  as  my  chief  Rabbi,  notvvithstandmg 


32  KIR  WAN's   REPLY 

"  the  sympathies  of  my  Irish  nature,"  I  would  not 
iong  hesitate  between  them.  I  have  no  great  relish 
for  the  nonsense  of  either  of  you,  but  I  could  swal- 
low his  with  far  less  difficulty  and  grimace,  than  I 
could  yours  ;  and  I  would  sooner  get  through.  My 
throat  would  not  have  to  be  stretched,  almost  to  the 
cracking  of  its  skin,  every  day  of  my  life,  for  the 
purpose  of  taking  down  some  monstrous  absurdity. 

But  you  plead  the  need  of  receiving  the  Scrip, 
tures  in  the  sense  ^iven  them  by  your  church,  to 
save  the  ch.^i^h  and  the  world  from  the  divisions 
and  schisms  ?  hich  are  the  necessary  result  of  pri- 
vate i.iterpr'.tation.  It  is  to  be  regretted,  on  the 
whole,  thftt  those  who  reject  church  interpretation 
are  ar  much  divided  among  themselves.  But  it  is 
diffiii'Jt  to  form  any  machinery,  however  perfect, 
without  some  friction.  Like  all  other  good  things, 
the  right  of  private  judgment  has  been  abused.  But 
what,  sir,  has  been  so  awfully  abused  as  the  doc- 
trines of  church  interpretation  and  sacramental 
grace,  two  of  the  prime  doctrines  of  holy  mother  ? 
Diversity  of  opinion  is  necessarily  connected  with 
the  exercise  of  the  right  of  private  judgment ;  as 
God  has  no  more  made  minds  to  think  alike  than  he 
has  faces  to  look  alike,  or  temperaments  to  act  alike. 
God  and  nature  abhor  dead  levels.  Uniformity 
with  diversity  seems  to  be  the  great  law  of  Jehovah. 
And  whether  to  surrender  our  right  of  private  judg-  * 
ment  in  religious  things  for  the  sake  of  a  level  uni- 
formity, or  to  retain  it  with  the  variety  of  opinions 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  33 

which  may  spring  from  it,  is  the  question  which 
here  divides  the  Papist  from  the  Protestant.  To  my 
mind  it  is  like  the  question  whether  we  shall  have  a 
free  open  sea,  with  its  ceaseless  sounding,  its  ever 
heaving  bosom,  and  its  billows  occasionally  rolled  to 
the  sky  by  the  tempest,  or  a  sea  bound  in  fetters,  with 
an  unruffled  bosom,  stagnating  by  day  and  by  night, 
and  sending  over  earth  and  air  its  putrid  exhala- 
tions. 

Whilst  I  deplore  the  divisions  among  Protestants 
and  feel  that  they  are  unnecessary,  evincing  less 
forbearance  than  passion,  yet,  sir,  does  holy  mother 
exclude  them  from  her  pale  by  her  stringent  rule 
of  church  interpretation  ?  Has  she  had  no  schisms 
in  her  bosom  ?  Among  her  numerous  progeny  have 
there  been  no  Mother  Ann  Lees,  no  Joe  Smiths,  no 
Father  Millers  ?  Perhaps,  sir,  you  forget  that  the 
fathers  of  Protestantism  have  contended,  in  every 
age,  with  all  forms  of  fanaticism ;  and  have  used 
all  weapons  against  them,  save  those  potent  ones  of 
your  church,  fire  and  faggot.  Has  your  church 
done  so  ?  Has  not  your  priesthood,  in  every  age, 
fostered  fanaticism  and  absurdity  ?  Liberius  pa- 
tronized Arianism,  a  branch  of  Socinianism.  Mon- 
tanus,  more  than  a  rival  for  Svvedenborg,  was  patron- 
ized by  his  cotemporary  pope.  And  the  fanaticism 
of  Mother  Lee,  and  of  Joanna,  go  out  as  do  the  stars 
amid  the  effulgence  of  the  sun,  when  compared  with 
the  fanaticism  of  Beata  of  Cuenza,  who,  teaching 
that  her  body  was  transubstantiated  into  our  Lord's 


34  kirwan's  reply 

body,  was  conducted  with  processions  to  the  churches 
where  she  was  adored,  as  you  now  adore  the  host ; 
or  with  that  of  Clara  of  Madrid,  who  claimed,  and 
was  allowed,  to  be  a  prophetess ;  or  of  sister  Nati- 
vite,  who  saw  on  one  occasion  in  the  hands  of  the 
ofTiciating  priest,  at  the  consecration  of  the  wafer,  a 
little  child,  living  and  clothed  with  light.  The 
child,  eager  to  be  eaten,  spoke  with  an  infantile 
voice  and  desired  to  be  swallowed  !  And  you,  sir, 
a  bishop  in  a  church  whose  history  is  crowded  with 
the  feats  of  such  fanatics,  and  whose  bishops  and 
popes  have  been  their  patrons,  will  quote  against 
Protestants  the  examples  of  a  few  fanatics  that  we 
have  ever  opposed,  to  prove  to  us  the  mischief  of 
interpreting  the  Bible  for  ourselves  !  Bishop  Hughes ! 
Bishop  Hughes  ! !  O  Bishop  Hughes  ! ! ! 

Nor  is  this  all.  You  dwell  upon  our  divisions 
and  schisms  as  proof  to  demonstration  against  our 
private  interpretation ;  forgetting  that  if  strong 
against  us,  it  is  equally  strong  against  church  in- 
terpretation. Have  you  never  read  of,  or  have  you 
conveniently  forgotten^  the  western  schism  which 
rent  the  bosom  of  holy  mother  ?  Have  you  forgot- 
ten the  feuds  between  the  Jansenists  and  the  Jesuits, 
and  those -caused  by  the  Augustines  and  the  Domi- 
nicans ?  Have  you  never  read  of  the  Scotists  and 
Thomists — of  ihe  war  about  the  immaculate  con- 
ception of  the  Virgin  Mary  between  the  Franciscans 
and  Dominicans — of  the  feud  between  the  Francis- 
cans and  Pope  John  ?     Through  every  century  of 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  35 

her  existence  the  bosom  of  holy  mother  has  been 
rent  by  internal  feuds  such  as  have  never  cursed 
the  Protestant  world.  And  at  this  very  hour  her 
bosom  is  like  the  bowels  of  Etna  when  on  the  eve 
of  an  eruption. 

Sir,  it  would  have  been  well  for  you  had  you 
made  yourself  better  acquainted  with  the  annals 
of  Popery  and  Protestantism,  to  use  your  own  clas- 
sical and  dignified  language,  "  before  you  had 
launched  your  shallow  bark  on  the  ocean  of  eccle- 
siastical history." 

I  will  recur  again  to  this  subject  in  my  next. 
Yours,  &c. 

KiRWAN. 


36  kirwan's  reply 


LETTER  IV. 

Examination  of  Church  interpretation  aontinued — Its  destnictive  conse- 
quences— It  is  a  monstrous  assumption. 

My  dear  Sir, — At  the  close  of  my  last  letter  I 
was  considering  your  argument  for  church  inter- 
pretation drawn  from  the  divisions  and  schisms 
which  prevail  among  Protestants.  Although  I  have 
shown  that  the  argument  against  private,  is  equally 
strong  against  church  interpretation,  I  have  a  few 
things  more  to  say  in  reference  to  it.  As  it  is  your 
talcing  argument  with  weak  minds,  it  requires  more 
attention  than  its  merits  deserve.  Like  almost  all 
taking  arguments,  it  is  a  weak  one. 

I  have  already  shown  how  grievously,  in  every 
age,  your  church  has  been  rent  by  schism,  and  dis- 
graced by  fanaticism.  I  would  now  ask  why  the 
distinction  you  set  up  between  doctrine,  and  diS' 
dphne  and  morals  ?  The  church  is  infallible  in 
'doctrine,  but  not  in  discipline  or  morals !  And 
when  we  compare  the  things  in  which  she  is  in- 
fallible, with  those  in  which  she  is  not,  the  latter 
far  outnumber  the  former.  Now  why  the  distinc- 
tion ?  The  few  things  in  which  you  agree  are 
called  doctrine  ;  and  the  many  in  which  you  do 
not   agree   are  called  discipline  and  morals !     So 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES.*  37 

that  the  distinction  is  made  to  excuse  the  infinite 
diversity  of  opinion  that  exists  among  you  ;  and 
also  to  excuse  the  shocking  enormities  committed 
by  your  church  as  mere  matters  of  discipline  and 
morals !  And  yet,  singular  to  state,  your  church 
pronounces  equally  heavy  curses  against  those  who 
reject  her  discipline  and  morals,  on  which  she  has 
made  no  infallible  decision,  as  against  those  who 
reject  her  doctrines,  on  which  she  has  ! 

Now,  sir,  if  the  above  distinction  between  doc- 
trines, and  discipline  and  morals,  is  a  true  one, 
which  I  utterly  deny  ; — if  a  people  may  be  con- 
sidered a  unity  who  unite  in  a  few  radical  doctrines 
however  they  may  disagree  on  things  pertaining  to 
discipline  and  morals,  I  am  prepared  to  show  that 
the  unity  of  the  Protestant  world  far,  veiy  far  sur- 
passes that  of  the  Papal.  The  things  in  which  we 
agree  are  more  numerous  and  more  important  than 
are  your  infallible  doctrines,  and  the  things  in 
which  we  disao;ree  are  less  numerous  and  less  im- 
portant  than  are  your  matters  of  discipline  and 
morals.  And  yet  you  come  near  waxing  eloquent, 
and  becoming  interesting  on  our  diversity,  when 
contrasted  with  your  unity  !  But,  I  suppose  we 
must  excuse  you  on  the  ground  that  you  are  writing 
for  Roman  Catholics,  who,  poor  creatures,  are  ex- 
eluded  from  the  ranks  of  "  private "  or  public 
"  reasoners."  Nothinj?  saves  this  ar^rument  from 
derision,  but  my  unwillingness  to  offend  against 
decorum. 

4 


38  *     KIR  WAN's    REPLY 

"  The  church  gives  authority  and  meaning  to  the 
Scriptures,  and  we  must  receive  them  as  the  church 
interprets  them."  The  Scriptures,  the  Apocrypha, 
the  unanimous  consent  of  the  fathers,  the  sacred 
canons,  the  decisions  of  councils,  and  oral  traditions, 
form  your  rule  of  faith.  And  as  these,  like  the 
Bible,  which  you  seem  as  much  disposed  to  ridicule 
as  to  eulogize,  are  made  up  of  paper,  types  and  ink, 
and  are  silent  when  you  ask  them  any  questions, 
tliey  need  a  living  interpreter.  And  to  avail,  he  or 
she  must  be  infallible.  This  living,  infallible  inter- 
preter is  your  church.  That  is,  as  I  have  already 
shown,  the  church  is  the  rule  of  the  church.  To 
him  who  is  infallible  all  faith  and  practice  are 
equally  true.  The  truth  of  principles  changes  as 
he  changes.  Infallibility  prevents  the  correction  of 
error — makes  principles  however  opposite  equally 
true — obliges  the  infallible  one  when  he  goes  wrong 
to  defend  the  wrong,  and  to  stay  wrong  for  ever. 
Thus,  as  your  church  has  been  on  all  sides  of 
almost  all  questions,  because  infallible,  she  makes 
the  opposite  sides  equally  true  ;  and  thus  lays  the 
axe  at  the  root  of  all  true  principles  and  of  ail  true 
morals.  And  the  facts  in  the  case  prove  the  truth 
of  my  inference.  What  truer  sons  of  your  ch.  rch 
has  the  earth  ever  borne  than  the  Jesuits  ?  And 
what  class  of  men  have  so  undermined  the  founda- 
tions of  all  true  principles  and  morals  !  Have  you 
read  Pascal's  Letters  ?  So  that  it  may  be  laid 
down  as  a  principle  equally  true  of  men  and  of 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  39 

nations,  the  more  entirely  papal,  the  more  entire 
the  absence  of  sound  principles  and  sound  morals. 
The  maximum  of  the  one  is  always  in  connection 
with  the  minimum  of  the  other. 

I  think,  sir,  that  if  you  do  not,  all  "  pji'ivate  rea- 
soners "  will  agree  that  I  have  shown  your  prin- 
ciple, that  "the  Bible  has  no  authority  but  wha^ 
your  church  gives  it,  and  that  we  must  receive  it  as 
your  church  interprets  it,"  is  the  merest  assump- 
tion. It  is  a  principle  unworthy  of  you  as  a  man ; 
more  unworthy  of  you  as  a  minister  of  the  God  of 
truth  ;  and  deserving  only  the  scornful  rejection  of 
all  intelligent  and  thinking  men.  But  as  Lhe  desti- 
nies of  this  ruined  world  and  of  the  true  church 
of  God  are  bound  up  in  the  principle,  let  us  look  at 
its  effects  when  carried  out. 

"  The  interpretation  of  the  church  ;"  this  is  your 
great  principle,  and  your  catholicon  for  all  divisions 
and  heresies.  The  Jewish  church  was  infallible,  as 
your  chief  writers  assert.  And  the  Jewish  people 
were  bound  to  receive  the  Scriptures  as  interpreted 
by  those  who  sat  in  Moses'  seat.  And  yet  this  in- 
fallible church,  by  its  infallible  teachers,  put  to  death 
the  Lord  of  glory.  Jesus  Christ,  then,  fell  a  victim 
to  the  very  principle  which  you  assert — the  princi- 
ple of  church  interpretation.  And  how  many  of  the 
most  devoted  followers  jf  Jesus  Christ  have  fallen 
victims  to  the  same  principle,  we  are  not  to  know 
until  the  day  of  final  revealing. 

Church  interpretation  is  exclusive  cf  private  judg- 


40  KIRWAN  S    REPLY 

merit.  If  true  it  ■would  have  forever  prevented  the 
ereclion  of  the  Christian  church.  It  would  have 
bound  all  Jews  to  remain  Jews  forever,  and  all  othor 
men  to  become  Jews  in  belief,  in  order  to  enter  hea- 
ven.  Like  your  church  the  Jewish  made  void  the 
law  of  God  by  traditions.  Their  traditions  and 
church  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  were  all 
against  Jesus  Christ ;  how  then,  on  your  principles, 
could  the  foundations  of  the  church  of  Christ  be 
laid  ?  They  never  could  be.  How  were  they  laid  ? 
By  those  who  rejected  church  interpretation,  and 
who  for  themselves  examined  the  Scriptures,  and 
considered  the  evidences  which  proved  to  them  that 
Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  You,  sir,  as  a  minister,  owe 
your  standing  in  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ  to  the 
rejection  of  the  very  principle  which  you  assert, 
and,  with  so  much  flimsy  sophistry,  enforce ;  and 
to  the  adoption  of  the  principle  of  private  interpre- 
tation which,  in  seeking  to  vilify,  you  only  expose 
yourself  to  scorn.  Your  argument  is  contemptible, 
and  makes  j^ou  ridiculous. 

Nor  is  this  all.  If  we  carry  out  your  principles 
how  can  you  expect  us  to  return  to  your  church  ? 
Lei  me  make  the  case  my  own  to  give  point  and 
directness  to  what  I  say.  I  am  an  unbeliever,  b.it 
sincerely  inquiring  after  the  true  church  ;  and  I 
go  to  your  residence  to  have  my  inquiries  answered. 
You  state  to  me  the  marks  of  the  true  church,  be- 
ginning with  that  of  unity j  and  quote  some  Scripture 
ji  confirmation.     But  what  must  I  do  ?  for  I  am  for- 


TO    BISHOP    HTTGHES.  41 

bidden  the  exercise  of  my  private  judgment.  If  I 
say  the  mark  is  a  true  one,  and  is  based  on  Scrip- 
ture, that  is  a  private  judgment  which  I  have  no 
right  to  exercise  ;  if  I  deny  it,  and  the  relevancy  of 
the  texts  quoted,  it  is  again  a  rejection  of  your  prin- 
ciple. You  pass  on  to  the  next  mark,  sanctity,  and 
dwell  upon  your  holiness  of  doctrine.  To  be  satis- 
fied of  this  being  a  true  mark,  I  must  compare  your 
doctrines  with  those  of  the  Scriptures  ;  if  I  come  to 
the  conclusion  the  mark  is  a  true  one,  1  reject  your 
rule  ;  if  to  the  opposite  conclusion  I  yet  reject  it. 
Our  conversation  ends,  and  I  retire  either  impressed 
by  your  arguments,  or  bewildered  by  your  sophis- 
try. In  a  few  days  I  return,  saying,  "  Well,  Bishop 
Hughes.  I  have  deeply  considered  your  statements, 
and  I  have  concluded  that  they  are  true,  and  that 
yours  is  the  true  church  ;  and  I  wish  to  connect 
myself  with  it."  Would  you  receive  me?  Gladly. 
And  yet  by  receiving  me  you  deny  the  truth  of  your 
own  rule,  and  admit  that  a  man  on  his  private  judg- 
ment  can  "  make  an  act  of  faith."  If  converts  can- 
not be  made  in  this  way  to  Popery  how  can  they 
be  1  If  made  in  this  way  where  is  the  force  or  ths 
truth  of  your  denunciations  of  private  judgment  1 
If  men  have  no  right  to  road  or  to  judge  of  the 
Scriptures  for  themselves — no  right  to  form  an  opi- 
nion as  to  the  clashing  claims  for  the  true  church, 
why  the  series  of  letters  before  me,  in  which  bold 
assertion,  a  little  truth,  much  sophistry,  perverted 

texts  of  Scripture,  and  no  little  arrogance,  are  mixed 

4  * 


42 

and  mingled  together  to  prove  that  yours  is  the  true 
church,  and  to  induce  all  to  flee  to  her  fold  who 
wish  to  escape  perdition  ?  Sir,  your  doctrine  is  a 
suicidal  one  ;  your  church  cannot  live  with  it,  nor 
can  it  live  without.  It  is  gotten  up  for  babes  in  in- 
tellect, and  not  for  men. 

But  let  us  admit  the  full  truth  of  the  doctrine, 
and  that  it  is  binding  on  eveiy  mortal ;  what  fol- 
lows ?  I  must  give  up  my  Bible  and  lock  up  my 
private  judgment.  Wishing  to  know  what  meaning 
tlie  church  gives  John  5  :  39,  I  apply  to  my  neigh- 
boring priest.  But  he  has  not  read  the  fathers,  nor 
the  canon  law,  nor  the  decrees  of  councils,  nor  the 
bulls  of  the  pope,  nor  the  Scriptures.  He  applies 
to  you  his  bishop  ;  nor  have  you  read  them.  You 
apply  to  the  archbishop  ;  nor  has  he  read  them.  He 
applies  to  the  cardinals  ;  nor  have  they  read  them. 
They  apply  to  the  pope  ;  nor  has  he  read  them.  I 
here  venture  the  assertion  that  there  is  not  a  living 
man  who  has  read  your  rule  of  faith.  How  can  I 
know  then  what  the  church  teaches  ?  Even  if  her 
teachings  were  harmonious,  there  is  no  knowing. 
But,  for  the  argument,  I  grant  that  the  pope  and  his 
cardinals,  who  virtually  compose  "  holy  mother,'' 
do  know  the  rule.  They  tell  the  archbishop,  he 
tells  you,  you  tell  the  priest,  and  the  priest  tells  me. 
And  however  my  common  sense  revolts  against  it, 
I  must  receive  it,  as  a  good  son  of  the  church ! 

See  .hen  the  position  to  which  your  doctrine  re- 
duces  every   thinking   and   thoughtless    man.     It 


'  TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  43 

brings  us  all  on  our  knees  before  your  priests,  mul- 
litudes  of  whom  are  as  unprincipled  and  wicked  as 
they  are  ignorant ;  deprives  us  of  the  right  of  private 
judgment,  and  compels  us  to  open  our  minds  and 
souls  to  whatever  nonsense,  concocted  in  Italy,  they 
might  see  fit  to  ladle  into  them. 

These,  sir,  are  the  considerations  which  prove 
the  principle  I  have  been  considering  not  only  a 
mere  but  a  monstrous  assumption ;  a  principle  which, 
whether  true  or  untrue,  is  equally  fatal  to  the  claims 
of  your  church.  I  deeply  regret  that  any  clever 
son  of  old  Ireland,  after  breathino;  so  lonor  the  air  of 
freedom,  should  lend  himself  to  the  support  of  such 
a  monstrous  principle.  The  logical  power  which 
you  display  in  its  support  gives  you  high  claims  to 
the  chair  of  logic  in  the  university  of  Heliopolis ! 

How  pleasant  it  is  to  turn  from  such  a  rule  to  the 
simple  and  pure  word  of  God,  given  to  be  a  lamp  to 
our  feet  and  a  light  to  our  paths.  If  with  that  lamp, 
we  wander  from  the  wa}'',  the  fault  is  in  ourselves. 
It  is  not  because  of  the  obscurity  with  which  God 
has  revealed  his  will,  but  because  our  foolish  minds 
are  darkened  by  reason  of  sin.  But  I  must  not 
forget  that  my  only  object  is  to  show  the  utter  faU 
lacy  of  your  principles. 

Yours, 

KmwAN. 


44  KIR  WAN's    REPLY 


LETTER  V. 

The  Papa]  Church  theory — A  mistake  in  selecting  Peter  for  the  tiara — The 
prayer  of  Christ  for  Peter  realized,  for  him  and  all  his  successors — The 
question,  Was  Peter  pope?  examined. 

My  dear  Sir, — In  my  last  letter  I  concluded  my 
analysis  of  the  principle  you  assert,  that  the  Bible 
has  no  authority  save  what  your  church  gives  it, 
and  that  it  must  be  understood  and  received  as  your 
church  interprets  it.  A  principle  more  untrue,  more 
absurd,  more  suicidal,  has  never  been  asserted.  It 
cannot  be  more  absurd,  but  it  is  infinitely  more 
dangerous,  than  your  doctrine  of  transubstantiation. 
Although  the  refutation  of  that  principle  saps  the 
foundation  of  all  that  you  have  written,  yet  there 
are  ether  principles  mixed  up  with  your  postulates 
that  require  notice.  Among  these  is  the  principle 
involved  in  your  theory  of  the  church.  As  the  para- 
graph which  you  mark  5,  contains  the  great  out- 
line of  your  church  theory,  I  will  here  quote  it 
entire. 

"  5.  But  twelve  Apostles,  invested  with  equaf 
authority,  might  disturb  the  order  and  defeat  the 
object,  which  their  Lord  had  appointed  them  to 
establish  and  secure.  His  kingdom  was  to  be  one; 
united  in  itself.     His  sheep  were  to  bo  comprised 


TO    BISHOP   HrCHES.  45 

in  '  ojie  fold,^  under  '  one  shepherd,^  and  not  under 
twelve.  Accordingly,  out  of  the  twelve,  being  all 
Apostles,  and  as  such  equal  in  dignity  and  au- 
thority, He  selected  one,  Peter ;  and  in  addition  to 
the  Apostleship,  which  he  enjoyed  like  the  others, 
conferred  on  him  special,  singular,  and  individual 
prerogative  and  power,  which  had  not  been  con- 
ferred on  the  other  eleven,  either  singularly  or  col- 
lectively ;  and,  as  our  Lord  had  said  many  things 
to  the  multitude,  at  large,  and  some  things  to  the 
Apostles  alone,  so,  also,  He  addressed  many  in- 
structions to  the  Apostles  as  such,  including  Feler, 
and  sofne  things  to  Pete?'  alone,  in  which  the  others 
had  no  direct  lot  or  part.  Satan,  he  said,  desired 
them  (all),  that  he  might  sift  them  as  wheat,  but 
He  prayed  for  Peter,  that  his  faith  might  not  fail ; 
and  that  he,  being  once  converted,  should  confimi 
his  brethren.  The  efficacy  of  this  prayer  of  the 
Man-God,  has  been  realized  in  His  church,  from 
the  days  of  Cephas  himself,  through  the  whole  line 
of  his  successors,  down  to  the  exercise  of  the  chief 
Apostleship,  in  our  own  times,  by  the  great  and 
illustrious  Pius  IX." 

The  great  papal  idea  here  asserted  is  the  placing 
of  Peter  over  the  other  Apostles  as  their  superior, 
and  as  the  "  Vicar  of  Christ,"  and  as  the  head  of 
the  church,  and  the  perpetuation  of  this  office  in  his 
successors,  down  to  the  present  day.  Do  you  not 
know,  sir,  that  these  claims  set  up  in  behalf  of 
Peter  have  been  proven,  very  many  times,  to  be 
without  the  shadow  of  a  foundation  ?  And  yet  you 
assert  them  as  confidently  as  if  they  had  never  been 
questioned,  and  quote  Scripture  to  prove  them,  jusl 


46  kirwan's  heply 

as  if  we  had  a  :ight  to  form  any  opinion  adverse 
to  yours  on  the  subject !  Before  attempting  to  Fhow, 
what  has  been  so  often  shown  before,  that  poor  Peter 
was  never  made  pope,  there  are  one  or  two  ideas  I 
wish  to  suggest  just  here. 

Do  you  not  think  that  your  church  made  a  mis- 
take in  selecting  Peter  for  the  tiara  ?  Would  you  not 
have  succeeded  better  with  some  of  the  other  Apos- 
tles, one  of  the   "  sons  of  thunder,"  for  instance  ? 
And    how    papal    would    be   the    idea, — a   son   of 
thunder,  "  thundering  from  the  Vatican  !"     Would 
you  not  have  succeeded  with  John  better  than  with 
Peter  1     You  could  have  urged  in  his  behalf  that 
he  was  the  beloved  disciple — that  he  was  often  in 
the  bosom   of  his  Lord — that  Peter  on  a  certain 
occasion  sent  him  to  ask  of  the  Saviour  a  question 
which  he  feared  to  ask  himself — that  he  did  higher 
service  to  the  church  by  his  writings,  which  form 
so  large  a  part  of  the  New  Testament — that  he  out- 
ran Peter,  and  reached  first  the  sepulchre — that  he 
outlived   all  the  other  Apostles  !     And  this  would 
save  you  all  questions  about  John  the  beloved  dis- 
ciple, the   inspired  Apostle,  the   lovely  evangelist, 
being  subject  to  a  successor  of  Peter  who  probably 
had  never  seen  Christ,  nor,  perhaps,  Peter.     If  John 
were  your  candidate  you  could   not  say  so  much 
about  "  this  rock,"  nor  about  "  the  keys;"  but  then 
you  would   not  be  as  pressed  as  now  about   "  get 
thee  behind  me,  Satan,"  about  Peter's  swearing  so, 
and  denying  his  Master.    My  opinion  is,  but  I  am  a 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  47 

"  private  reasoner,"  that  you  would  have  succeeded 
better  with  John.  I  would  advise  you  to  correct 
tradition,  for  I  have  no  doubt  she  has  erred,  and 
substitute  John  for  Peter.  You  will  find  it  a  won- 
derful relief. 

The  use  you  make  of  the  text  you  quote  in  the 
above  paragraph  strikes  me  very  singularly.  Satan 
desired  the  Apostles,  as  he  once  did  Job,  that  he 
might  sift  them  as  wheat.  Knowing  Peter  to  be 
most  in  danger  of  them  all,  he  prayed  especially 
for  him  ;  and  from  this  passage,  whose  only  object 
is  to  show  that  poor  Peter  was  more  in  danger  of 
falling  under  the  influence  of  the  devil  than  any 
of  his  brethren,  you  deduce  an  argument  for  his 
supremacy  !  I  have  no  doubt,  if  hard  pressed,  that 
like  some  astute  critics  of  former  days,  you  could 
find  the  history  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  Iliad 
of  Homer  !  What  bounds  can  confine  the  power 
of  a  man  who  can  create  God  out  of  a  wafer  ? 

Consider  well  the  following  sentence  in  the  above 
paragraph  ;  "  the  efficacy  of  this  prayer  of  the  Man- 
God,  has  been  realized  in  his  church,  from  the  days 
of  Cephas  himself,  through  the  whole  line  of  his 
successors  .  .  .  down  to  the  great  and  illustrious 
Pius  IX."  Considerincr  all  tliino;s  this  is  a  most 
extraordinary  assertion.  That  is,  Peter's  faith 
never  failed  ;  nor  has  the  faith  of  a  single  pope 
from  Peter  to  Pius  !  Notwithstanding  the  prayer 
of  his  Master,  Satan  sifted  Peter.  In  the  hour  of 
severe  trial  his  faith  failed.     When  accused  in  the 


48  kirwan's  reply 

palace  of  Pilate  of  being  one  of  the  disciples,  *'  he 
began  to  curse  and  to  swear,  saying,  1  know  not  the 
man."  And  is  it  in  this  way  that  the  efficacy  of 
that  prayer  "  has  been  realized  through  the  whole 
line  of  his  successors  ?"  And  yet,  sir,  Peter, 
cursing  and  swearing,  was  an  angel,  in  comparison 
with  many  in  "  the  line  of  his  successors."  I 
know  not  how  you  could  make  an  assertion  more 
historically  false ;  and  the  truth  of  which  your  own 
writers,  yes,  and  John  Hughes  himself,  deny. 

But  tlie  question  returns.  Was  Peter  made  pope, 
to  exercise  supreme  authority  in  the  church  ;  and 
was  the  power  thus  conferred  upon  him  hereditary, 
to  descend  to  all  his  successors  in  the  See  of  Rome  ? 
This  is  a  doctrine,  or  principle,  with  which  your 
church  stands  or  falls.  The  pope  is  the  centre  of 
unity,  and  to  be  separated  from  him,  according  to 
your  showing,  is  to  be  cast  out  among  heathens  and 
publicans.  This  principle,  involving  the  existence 
of  your  church,  and  my  salvation,  I  deny,  and  put 
you  on  the  proof. 

If  called  to  prove  this  principle  in  a  court  of 
justice,  how  would  you  proceed  ?  Would  you  call 
upon  tradition  to  give  her  testimony  1  But  tradi- 
tion has  been  in  the  keeping  of  the  pope  ;  and  this 
would  be  like  calling  upon  the  pope  to  testify  to  his 
own  supremacy,  which,  in  view  of  the  power  and 
emoluments  of  his  office,  1  have  no  doubt  he  would 
be  willing  to  do.  But  would  his  testimony  be  re- 
ceived ?     Would  you  invoke  the  aid  of  the  Scrip- 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  49 

lures  ?  But  this  would  be  giving  up  one  of  your 
fundamental  principles  ;  as  the  Scriptures  to  us 
have  no  sense  but  what  the  church,  which  is  vir- 
tually the  pope,  gives  them.  This  would  be  again 
calling  on  the  pope  to  testify  to  his  own  supremacy, 
which  could  not  be  admitted.  But  supposing  you 
admit  the  common  sense  meaning  of  the  Scriptures 
to  bear  on  the  case,  which  every  body  not  a  Papist 
is  willing  to  do,  where  would  you  commence  ? 

Would  you  cite  the  very  pertinent  passage  in 
Luke  (xxii.  24 — 30),  where  the  Saviour  so  sharply 
rebukes  his  disciples,  because  there  was  a  strife 
amongst  them  as  to  which  of  them  should  be 
greatest  ?  or  that  of  Mark  (ix.  34),  where,  again 
reproving  them  for  their  contention  about  pre- 
eminence, he  says :  "  If  any  man  desire  to  be  the 
first,  the  same  shall  be  last  of  all  and  servant  of 
all."  Would  not  the  judge  say,  "  Bishop  Hughes, 
these  texts  are  not  to  the  point ;  for  if  Peter  were 
placed  over  the  disciples,  why  contention  among 
them  for  pre-eminence  ?  Would  not  Christ  have 
settled  the  matter  at  once,  and  say,  contend  no 
more,  I  have  made  Peter  your  pope  ?" 

Driven  thence,  would  you  next  cite  the  passage 
in  Ephesians  (iv.  11),  where  Paul  enumerates  the 
various  kinds  of  teachers  which  Christ  on  his  as- 
cension gave  to  the  church,  as  apostles,  prophets, 
evangelists,  pastors,  teachers  for  the  perfecting  of 
the  saints, — and  the  parallel  passage  in  1  Corinthi- 
ans (xii.  28)  ?     Would  not  the  judge  again  say, 

5 


50  kirwan's  reply 

"  Bishap  Hughes,  those  are  not  to  the  point,  ay 
they  say  nothing  about  a  pope,  nor  a  word  about 
the  supremacy  of  Peter." 

Foiled  again  here,  would  you  next  cite  the  passage 
(1  Cor.  i.  12)  which  informs  us  of  pastors  in  the 
church  of  Corinth,  one  claiming  to  be  of  Paul,  ano- 
ther of  Apollos,  and  another  of  Peter  ?  and  then 
would  you  turn  to  the  passage  in  Galatians  (ii.  14), 
where  Paul  most  sliarpjy  rebukes  Peter  for  his  dis- 
simulation ?  Would  not  the  j  jdge  reply,  "  Bishop 
Hughes,  what  do  you  mean  ?  If  Peter  were  pope, 
why  did  he  not  excommunicate  the  parties  of  Paul 
and  Apollos  at  Corinth,  those  early  protestants 
against  his  supremacy  ?  If  he  were  pope,  why  for 
a  moment  permit  Paul  at  Antioch  to  dispute  his 
right  to  dissemble  when  circumstances  required  him 
so  to  do  ?  These  passages,  sir,  are  against  you,  in- 
stead of  proving  the  position  you  assert." 

Foiled  again,  would  you  cite  the  passage  in  Acts 
(viii.  14),  where  the  apostles  in  Jerusalem  sent 
Peter  and  John  to  Samaria  to  assist  in  carrying 
on  the  good  work  there  ;  and  that  other  passage  in 
the  15th  chapter  of  Acts,  where  James  declares  the 
decision  of  the  council  at  Jerusalem,  called  to  con- 
sider some  ceremonial  questions  started  among  the 
churches  of  the  Gentiles  by  Judaizing  teachero  ? 
The  judge  would  again  reply,  "  These  passages  are 
not  to  the  point ;  for  if  Peter  were  pope,  would  he 
bear  to  be  sent  by  those  beneath  him  to  Samaria  ? 
Would  he  permit  James  to  preside  in  Jerusalem,  at 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  51 

that  first  council,  and  to  declare  its  will ;  duties 
which  devolved  on  him  by  right  of  office?  These 
passages,  sir,  are  sadly  against  you." 

You  now,  with  some  little  excitement  created  by 
these  repulses,  quote  the  passage  in  Matthew  (xvi. 
18,  19)  :  "  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I 
build  my  church  ;  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven."  This  you  do  with  an  air 
of  assurance,  feeling  that  you  have  trapped  the  judge 
at  last.  But  he  replies,  being  ai  once  a  Christian 
and  a  sound  lawyer,  "  Bishop  Hughes,  these  are  dis- 
puted texts  as  to  their  true  import ;  and  the  point 
that  you  wish  to  establish,  being  one  of  transcendent 
importance,  should  have  something  to  sustain  it  bo- 
sides  texts  of  controverted  meaning.  You  so  explain 
this  text  as  to  make  Peter  the  foundation  of  the 
church ;  but  Peter  himself  denies  this,  by  asserting 
that  Christ  is  its  foundation  (1  Peter,  2d  chap). 
Paul  also  denies  it  when  he  says  that  Christ  Jesus 
is  the  only  foundation  that  has  been,  or  can  be  laid 
(1  Cor.  iii.  11)  ;  and  when  he  represents  Jesus 
Christ  himself  as  the  chief  corner-stone  (Eph.  ii.  20). 
And  Jerome,  Chrysostom,  Origen,  Cyril,  Hilary, 
Augustine,  make  "  the  rock  "  to  mean,  not  Peter, 
but  the  faith,  or  confession  of  Peter.  And  as  to  the 
gift  of  the  keys,  that  avails  you  notliing  as  to  the 
supremacy  of  Peter,  for  they  were  given  equally  to 
the  other  apostles  as  to  him.  And  besides,  I  do  not 
see  what  could  be  gained  by  placing  the  church 
upon  Peter ;  as,  for  all  interests  concerned,  it  is 
better  that  it  should  be  built  upon  Christ." 


52 

Thus  repulsed  on  every  hand,  T  hear  you  ask,  in 
an  excited  tone,  rather  warm  for  a  bishop,  "  If  these 
evidences  are  rejected,  what  will  your  honor  admit 
as  bearing  upon  the  point?"  With  the  calmness 
becoming  a  judge,  he  replies,  "  Bishop  Hughes,  I 
want  proof,  beyond  question,  that  Jesus  Christ  made 
Peter  pope.  I  want  clear  proof  of  the  fact  that  he 
ever  exercised  the  power  of  the  pope  in  any  one 
case.  I  want  proof  that  ever  one  of  the  apostles  or 
any  other  contemporary  ever  referred  to  him,  or  ap- 
plied to  him  as  pope.  And  as  your  object  is  to 
prove  the  perpetuity  of  the  popedom,  if  you  prove 
that  Peter  was  mvested  with  supremacy  over  the 
other  apostles,  I  want  you  then  to  prove  that  that 
supremacy  was  not  to  end  with  his  death,  but  that 
it  was  to  be  held  in  fee  for  his  successor  for  ever. 
When,  sir,  these  points  are  proved,  and  not  before, 
you  may  look  for  a  decision  in  your  favor.  Have 
you  proof  as  to  these  points  ?" 

Looking  upon  a  judge  with  disdain  who  thus  re- 
quires you  to  make  brick  without  straw,  and  to 
prove  what  so  many  ages  have  taken  for  granted, 
you  collect  your  papers  and  make  your  exit. 

Sir,  your  assertion  of  the  supremacy  of  Cephas  is 
the  merest  assumption,  and  I  think  you  must  see  it 
to  be  so.  You  would  not  claim  the  possession  of  an 
acre  of  land  in  an  Irish  bog  if  you  could  advance  no 
better  claim  to  it  than  you  put  forth  for  the  su- 
premacy of  Peter.     But  the  end  is  not  yet. 

Yours, 

KiRWAN. 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  53 


LETTER  VI. 

Was  Peter  pope  1  examination  continaed — But  two  arguments  that  cannot 
be  answered — Tiilotson's  opinion. 

My  dear  Sir, — In  my  last  letter  I  entered  upon 
an  examination  of  the  claims  of  the  pope  to  suprem- 
acy without  concluding  it.  I  showed  you  that  in 
the  testing  of  these  claims,  the  testimony  of  tradition 
was  inadmissible  ;  and  that  the  teaching,  the  facts, 
and  the  tenor  of  the  New  Testament,  are  directly  in 
opposition  to  them.  But  as  a  man  of  spirit,  greatly 
unwilling  that  a  mere  "  private  reasoner "  should 
have  even  the  appearance  of  victory  over  you,  you 
appear  again  in  court  to  prove,  by  other  evidence, 
that  Peter  was  clothed  by  Christ  with  supremacy, 
and  that  he  was  first  pope  of  Rome.  The  judge 
having  already  decided  against  the  testimony  ad- 
duced to  prove  the  first  point,  and  having  called  for 
evidence  which  you  cannot  adduce,  you  address 
yourself  to  the  second,  to  prove  that  Peter  was  the 
first  pope  of  Rome.  You  state  the  point,  and  his 
honor  calls  for  the  testimony.  And  with  an  air  of 
triumph  you  adduce  the  early  records  of  the  church, 
from  its  foundation  to  the  fifth  century,  auiong  which 
are  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.     The  judge 

5* 


64  kirwan's  reply 

says,   "  Well,  Bishop  Hughes,  we  will  commence 
with  these  documents,  and  examine  them  in  their  or 
der."  The  proposition  is  a  fair  one,  and  you  consent. 

"  Mark,"  says  the  judge,  "  was  a  friend  and  fol 
lower  of  Peter.  He  wrote  his  gospel  at  Rome, 
about  thirty  years  after  the  ascension  of  Christ. 
Some  of  the  fathers  even  say  that  it  was  revised  by 
Peter.  Does  he  say  any  thing  about  Peter  being 
pope  of  Rome  ?"  You  reply,  '■  No,  Mark  is  silent 
on  the  subject."     So  that  document  is  laid  aside. 

"  Here  are  Peter's  own  letters,"  says  the  judge, 
"  written  but  a  short  time  previous  to  his  death, 
thirty  years  at  least  after  his  alleged  investiture  with 
the  supremacy.  Do  they  say  any  thing  upon  the 
subject  ?"  "  No,"  you  reply,  "  it  would  not  be 
modest  in  him  to  say  any  thing  about  the  matter." 
So  these  are  laid  aside,  the  judge  remarking  in  an 
under  tone,  "  It  would  have  been  well  if  the  suc- 
cessors of  Peter  had  imitated  his  modesty,  who,  after 
being  nearly  forty  years  pope,  in  two  letters  to  the 
churches  says  not  a  word  about  his  supremacy." 

"  Next  are  the  letters  of  Paul,"  says  the  judge, 
"  written  from  Rome,  and  to  the  Romans ;  do  they 
bear  any  testimony  to  the  point  to  be  proved  ?  His 
letter  to  the  Romans  was  written  several  years  after 
Peter  was  made  Pope  there  ;  does  he  say  any  thing 
about  pope  Peter  ?  At  the  close  of  the  letter  he 
sends  his  affectionate  salutations  to  upwards  of 
twenty  persons ;  does  he  mention  pope  Peter  ? 
When,   according  to  your  showing,  Peter  was  ia 


T<^    BISHOP    HUGHES.  55 

the  plenitude  of  his  power  at  Rome,  Paul  was  taken 
there  as  a  D^'isoner,  Whilst  there  he  wrote  several 
of  these  epistles,  -is  Peter  alluded  to  in  them  as 
pope  ?  is  he  named  at  all  ?  If  he  was  there,  Bishop 
Hughes,  how  do  you  account  for  what  Paul  writes 
to  Timothy  (2d  Tim.  i v.  16),  "  At  my  first  answer 
....  all  men  forsook  me  ?"  Does  Peter  play 
again,  in  the  court  of  Csesar,  the  part  he  played  in 
the  palace  of  Pilate  ?  Could  Paul  be  a  prisoner  in 
Rome  for  two  or  more  years,  and  pope  Peter  never 
do  him  any  kindness  ?  Could  he  have  done  him 
any  kindness,  and  yet  Paul  never  speak  of  it  to  his 
friends  ?     How  is  all  this  ?" 

Vexed  to  the  quick  by  these  questions,  for  even 
bishops  have  feelings,  and  plainly  perceiving  that 
his  honor  is  a  "  private  reasoner,"  you  reply,  "we 
will  lay  aside,  if  you  please,  those  documents  which 
form  the  New  Testament,  and  pass  on  to  the  next 
in  order.  They  have  always  been  wrested  by 
'  private  reasoners '  to  their  own  destruction,  who 
are  incapable  of  *  making  an  act  of  faith.'  '*  *'  But 
before  we  lay  them  aside,"  says  the  judge,  "  do  you 
admit,  bishop,  that  they  give  no  testimony  to  the 
point  before  the  court  ?"  You  give  a  reluctant  as- 
sent. He  again  asks,  •'  How  do  you  account  for  the 
fact  that  they  give  no  testimony,  considering  the  pe- 
culiar circumstances  under  which  they  were  writ- 
ten ?"     You  bite  your  lips,  but  are  speechless. 

After  waiting  a  few  minutes  for  a  reply,  the  judge 
says,  "  We  will  proceed  to  the  next  document ;  what 


56  kirwan's  reply 

is  it  ?  what  does  it  say  ?"  "  Here,"  you  say,  "  is 
Jerome,  who  says  that  Peter  went  to  Rome  in  the 
second  year  of  Claudius,  and  was  bishop  there 
twenty-five  years."  "  But,"  says  the  judge,  "  Je- 
rome wrote  about  the  year  400,  and  how  did  he 
know  ?  where  did  he  get  the  fact  ?  In  the  12th 
year  of  Claudius,  Paul  went  to  Jerusalem  and  found 
Peter  there.  Did  he  run  away  from  Rome  ?  Do 
popes  now  go  from  Rome  to  Jerusalem  ?  or  was  he 
like  some  bishops  in  our  day,  who  love  the  fleece 
more  than  the  flock,  a  non-resident  ?  In  the  reign 
of  Nero,  who  succeeded  Claudius,  Paul  went  to 
Rome,  and  found  the  people  there  quite  uninformed 
as  to  the  faith  of  Christ  (Acts  xxviii.  17-24).  If 
Peter  was  pope  there  for  so  many  years  previous, 
what  was  he  about  ?  Besides,  the  apostles  were 
ministers  at  large  ;  their  duty  was,  not  to  abide  in 
any  city,  not  to  demit  their  general  for  a  local  aui 
thority,  but  to  go  into  all  the  earth,  and  preach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature.  So  that  if  these  docu- 
ments are  true,  they  show  that  Peter,  at  least,  was 
disobedient  to  the  ascendinn;  command  of  his  Lord, 
by  locating  himself  at  Rome,  instead  of  laboring  to 
extend  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  So  that  if 
these  papers  are  true,  and  if  they  establish  the  point 
you  press  so  earnestly,  they  will  simply  prove  the 
unfaithfulness  of  Peter.  If  not  true,  vour  cause  is 
lost ;  if  true,  Peter  was  a  disobedient  apostle,  and 
ought  to  be  condemned,  instead  of  being  followed  and 
eulogized,  for  seeking  his  own  ease  instead  of  obey- 
ing his  Master's  command." 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  57 

As  the  judge,  seeking  only  the  truth,  places  you 
in  tills  sad  dilemma,  I  see  your  Irish  heart  swelling 
with  emotions.  You  seize  your  crook  and  your 
keys,  and  glance  a  wrathful  look  at  the  "  private 
reasoner,"  so  unfit  to  wear  the  ermine.  But  your 
sober  second  thoughts  return,  and  you  ask,  with  a 
tone  of  smothered  indignation,  '•  Wliat  proof  does 
your  honor  want  that  Peter  was  bishop  of  Rome  ? 
What  proof  will  you  admit  that  the  popes  of  our 
church  are  his  true  successors  V 

His  honor  replies  calmly  but  decidedly,  "Bishop 
Hughes,  the  point  you  wish  to  prove  is  one  of  vital 
importance.  It  is  the  hinge  upon  which  many 
grave  questions  turn,  which  deeply  concern  the  des- 
tinies of  our  race.  So  you  and  T  believe.  To  prove 
it  I  demand  of  you,  not  old  wives'  fables,  but  testi- 
mony so  clear  and  direct,  as  to  place  it  beyond  a 
doubt.  As  to  his  being  bishop  of  Rome,  or  being 
ever  at  Rome,  the  Scriptures  are  silent ;  and  that 
they  are  silent,  to  you  must  be  very  embarrassing. 
And  not  only  so,  but  upon  this  vital  point  the  apos- 
tolic men  who  conversed  with  the  apostles  are 
equally  silent  as  the  Scriptures.  Clemens,  Barna 
has,  Flermas,  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  say  not  a  word 
upon  the  subject.  At  about  the  close  of  the  second 
century  Irenaeus  records  it  as  a  tradition  received 
from  one  Papias,  and  is  followed  by  your  other  au- 
thorities. But  who  Papias  was,  whilst  there  are 
various  conjectures,  nobody  knows.  And  Eusebius 
speaks  of  the  matter  as  a  doubtful  tradition.     Here, 


58  kirwan's  reply 

sir,  is  the  amount  of  your  testimony ;  it  resolves  it- 
self into  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  a  prattling  Papias, 
who  told  Irenosus  that  somebody  told  him  that  Peter 
was  pope  at  Rome  !" 

"  Now,  sir,  the  evidence  I  require  is,  first,  that  he 
was  ever  at  Rome  ;  and  secondly,  that  if  there,  he 
was  pope  of  the  universal  church.  And  upon  these 
points  I  will  admit  the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures, 
the  apostles,  or  any  competent  cotemporary.  If  you 
have  any  such  testimony  produce  it."  You  reply, 
"  This  is  asking  too  much  of  an  infallible  church, 
whose  unwritten  tradition  is  of  equal  authority  with 
the  written  word."  His  honor  replies,  "Bishop 
Hughes,  it  is  asking  a  little  too  much  to  ask  us  to 
believe  without  evidence." 

"  You  ask,"  continues  the  judge,  "  what  evidence 
I  will  admit  to  prove  that  the  popes  are  the  suc- 
cessors of  Peter  ?  I  want  you,  first,  to  prove  that 
Peter  was  pope  ;  if  he  was  not  he  has  no  successors. 
If  he  was  pope,  I  then  wish  you  to  explain  why  he 
was  made  pope,  whilst  he  was  set  apart  as  the 
Apostle  of  the  circumcision.  You  send  him.  to  the 
Gentiles  whilst  his  peculiar  vocation  was  to  the  Jews. 
"  I  wish  you  also  to  explain,  why  make  him  pope  of 
Rome,  instead  of  Antioch,  where  we  know  he  la- 
bored with  great  success  ;  or  instead  of  Jerusalem, 
where  the  Spirit  was  poured  out,  and  where  he 
preached  with  such  remarkable  power  ?  Is  it  not 
probable  that  tradition  has  again  misled  you  as  to 
♦he  location  of  the  chair  of  Saint  Peter." 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  59 

"  When  you  have  proved  and  explainei  these 
things,  then  I  wish  you  to  tell  by  what  body  of  men 
Peter  was  made  pope  at  Rome,  and  how  he  was 
elected  ;  for  his  successors  must  be  so  appointed 
and  elected.  I  wish  you  to  state  how  Peter  was 
inaugurated  at  Rome,  and  what  were  the  limits  of 
his  authority  ;  for  so  his  successors  must  be  inau- 
gurated and  limited.  I  wish  you  to  prove  the  duties 
devolved  upor.  Peter,  and  his  manner  of  discharging 
them  ;  for  such  are  the  duties  of  his  successors,  and 
such  must  be  their  manner  of  discharo;ing  them.  I 
wish  you  to  prove  the  doctrines  and  morals  preached 
and  practised  by  Peter  ;  as  his  successors  must 
preach  and  practice  the  same  doctrines  and  morals. 
Peter  had  a  wife  ;  have  your  popes  ?  Peter  called 
himself  an  elder ;  do  your  popes  ?  Peter  exercised 
no  temporal  power  ;  is  it  so  as  to  your  popes  ?  Pe- 
ter devoted  himself  to  preaching  the  gospel ;  do  your 
popes  ?  Peter  was  a  man  of  no  parade,  though  im- 
pulsive, and  never  asked  any  mortal  to  kiss  his  foot 
or  his  toe  ;  is  it  so  with  your  popes  ?" 

Swelling  with  indignation  you  rise,  and  interrupt- 
ing the  judge,  you  exclaim,  "  Enough,  enough  ;  I 
see  that  your  honor  is  a  '  private  reasoner,'  inca- 
pable of  '  making  an  act  of  faith,'  and  of  course 
no  better  than  a  heathen  or  a  publican.  You  are 
unfitted  to  sit  upon  such  questions  or  to  decide  upon 
them."  And  collecting  again  your  napers  you  leave 
the  court,  muttering  in  an  under  tone  as  you  go,  that 
if  you  had  his  Honor  in  Italy  under  the  shaxlow  of, 


60 

the  sceptre  of  the  illustrious  Pius  IX,  you  would 
teach  him  what  was  the  true  evidence  a  judge  should 
require  upon  such  points. 

Thus,  sir,  in  the  form  of  a  judicial  investigation  I 
have  examined  the  testimony  which  your  church 
adduces  to  prove  that  Peter  was  clothed  by  Jesua 
Christ  with  supremacy  over  the  apostles — that  he 
was  the  first  pope  of  Rome — and  that  the  popes  of 
Rome  are  his  legitimate  successors.  There  is  not 
a  particle  of  reliable  proof  as  to  either  of  these  posi- 
tions— whilst  the  evidence  is  overwhelming  that  they 
are  the  merest  and  silliest  papal  assumptions.  And 
yet  upon  assumptions  based  upon  clouds  which  dis- 
appear before  the  light  of  investigation,  you  base  the 
very  existence  and  perpetuity  of  the  church  of  God  ! 
It  seems  incredible  that  a  man  of  sense,  and  an 
Irishman  too,  should  suspend  my  salvation  upon  my 
church  connection  with  men  called  popes,  whose 
ignorance,  and  profligacy,  and  cruelty,  and  false- 
hood, have  stamped  their  name  with  infamy — and 
tell  me  that  my  submission  to  God  and  his  Son  is 
of  no  avail  unless  I  submit  to  these  men,  some  of 
whom  were  devils  in  canonicals. 

There  are  two  items  of  proof  in  favor  of  the  su- 
premacy of  Peter  adduced  by  your  church  to  which 
I  have  not  alluded  ;  I  will  state  them  to  note  my 
omission  and  for  the  information  of  our  readers. 
The  first  is  the  passage  in  Luke  (5  :  3-10),  where 
Jesus  entered  into  the  ship  of  Peter,  in  preference 
to  that  of  James  and  John,  and  taught  the  people 


TO   BISHOP   HrGHES.  61 

out  of  it.  In  the  view  of  Milner  it  is  a  strong  proof 
of  the  supremacy  of  Peter  ! !  The  other  is  the  story 
about  Simon  Magus,  the  magician.  By  his  juggling 
miracles  he  made  many  followers,  and  greatly  pre- 
judiced the  people  against  the  gospel.  He  pro- 
claimed that  at  Rome  he  was  going  to  fly  in  the  air  ; 
and  Peter  was  there  to  oppose  him.  By  the  aid  of 
the  devil  he  absolutely  got  up  in  the  air ;  but  Peter 
knelt  down  and  prayed  so  earnestly  that  the  devil 
fled  away  and  lef^^poor  Simon  to  shift  for  himself — 
he  fell  to  the  earth  and  broke  both  his  legs.  And 
the  impressions  of  the  apostle's  knees  upon  the  stones 
in  Rome  are  shown  to  this  day  !  These  are  the 
most  unanswerable  arguments  upon  the  subject 
which  I  have  seen.  I  could  get  round  all  the  others, 
but  these  I  give  up  ! 

"  The  pope's  supremacy,"  said  Tillotson,  "  is  not 
only  an  indefensible,  but  also  an  impudent  cause ; 
there  is  not  one  tolerable  argument  for  it,  and  there 
are  a  thousand  invincible  reasons  against  it." 

I  have  now,  sir,  sapped  two  of  your  main  princi- 
ples ;  the  supremacy  of  Peter  and  his  successors, 
and  that  the  Bible  must  be  understood  and  received 
as  your  church  interprets  it.  The  taking  away  of 
these  two  principles  brings  your  whole  superstruc- 
ture tumbling  around  you.  Here  I  might  leave  you 
striving  to  escape  from  the  falling  masses  ;  but  "  the 
sympathies  of  my  Irish  nature  "  compel  me  to  say, 
the  end  is  not  yet. 

Yours,  KiRWAN. 

6 


"68  KIR  WAN's    IlEPLY 


LETTER  YIL 

Papal  claim  to  inrallibilit.y  examined,  and  refuted. 

My  dear  Sir, — Although  the  infaUihiUty  of  your 
church  is  involved  and  confuted  in  my  previous  let- 
ters ;  yet  as  you  place  so  much  stress  upon  it,  and 
make  it  one  of  your  fundamental  principles,  I  have 
supposed  it  worthy  of  a  separate  and  independent 
consideration.  I  will  subject  it  to  examination  in 
the  present  letter. 

In  letter  III,  chap.  25,  you  say,  "  The  Author  of 
revelation  identified  Himself  with  his  appointed  wit- 
ness, the  church,  in  such  a  manner  that  the  authori- 
ty of  the  one  is  essentially  implied  and  exercised  in 
the  authority  of  the  other."  That  is,  the  church 
has  the  same  authority  and  infallibility  that  Christ 
had.     This  is  a  plain,  though  bold  assertion. 

In  letter  V,  chap.  54,  you  say,  "  Whether  the 
words  had  ever  been  put  on  record  or  not  (that  is, 
whether  the  Scriptures  lad  ever  been  written  or 
not)  she  (the  church)  would  have  been  equally  in 
possession  of  that  prerogative,  namely,  the  vicarious 
authority  to  teach  unerringly  .  .  .  until  the  end 
ot  the  world,  the  doctrines  of  Christ  ....  What 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  69 

is  the  meaning  of  those  passages  if  it  be  not  to  in. 
vest  the  official  teachers  of  the  Christian  religion 
with  the  necessary  portion  of  in-errancy,  in  other 
words,  of  infallibility,  by  its  Divine  author." 

But  there  is  no  need  of  calling  evidence  to  con- 
vict you  of  teaching  the  dogma,  the  infallibility  of 
the  papal  church.  It  is  one  which  your  church  has 
ever  boldly  and  strenuously  asserted  ;  but  the  maxi- 
mum of  her  bold  and  confident  assertion  is  always 
in  connection  with  the  minimum  of  truth.  To  ex- 
pose the  utter  truthlessness  of  the  claim  a  few 
considerations  will  suffice. 

1.  How  do  you  prove  her  infallibility  ?  Tradition 
is  inadmissible  ;  because  that  has  been,  you  say,  in 
her  keeping.  It  is,  then,  either  a  bribed,  corrupted, 
or  partial  witness.  The  Scriptures,  on  your  ground, 
are  inadmissible,  because  the  church  must  give 
them  meaning  ;  and  a  meaning  which  we  are  bound 
to  receive.  The  church,  you  say,  was  before  the 
Scriptures,  and  gives  them  credibility  and  meaning. 
Where  is,  then,  the  testimony  to  her  infallibility  ? 
It  is  simply  and  only  her  oivn  assertion  of  it. 

2.  But  where  is  the  seat  of  her  infallibility  ?  Is 
it  in  the  pope  ?  But  this  some  popes  deny,  as  Gala- 
sius,  Innocent,  Eugenius,  Adrian,  and  Paul ;  whilst 
it  is  asserted  by  others.  And  those  who  assert  it 
differ  as  to  its  extent.  Whilst  some  popes  deny  their 
infallibility,  the  Jesuits  say  that  "  the  pope  is  as 
unerring  as  the  Son  of  God."  Is  this,  sir,  less  than 
blasphemy,  when  you  consider  who  some  of  your 
popes  were  ? 


64  KIRWAJJ'S    REPLY 

Is  it  in  a  general  council  ?  Such  is  the  system 
of  the  French  school,  and  of  some  popes,  and  of 
some  councils,  as  of  Constance,  Pisa,  and  Basil, 
which  deposed  some  popes  for  high  crimes.  But 
in  this  the  council  of  Lateran  contradicts  that  of 
Basil. 

Is  it  in  a  general  council  headed  hy  the  pope  ? 
This  some  positively  affirm.  But  this  is  opposed  by 
the  two  former  parties,  because  denying  the  princi- 
ple of  each. 

Is  it  in  the  church  universal,  consisting  of  pastors 
and  people  ?  So  some  assert,  and  among  them, 
Panormitan  and  Mirandula.  "  Ecclesia  universalis 
non  potest  errare,"  says  Panormitan.  This  how- 
ever is  a  small  party  opposing  all,  and  opposed  by 
all  the  others. 

Now,  sir,  when  you  differ  about  the  seat  of  infal- 
libility so  widely  and  bitterly,  what  can  you  expect 
better  from  a  "  private  reasoner "  than  that  he 
should  ask  you  the  impertinent  questions.  If  your 
church  is  infallible,  why  does  she  not  determine 
where  her  infallibility  is  located  ?  What  is  her 
infallibility  worth,  if  she  never  knows  where  to 
find  it  ? 

3.  The  infallibility  of  your  church  is  too  limitea 
in  extent.  Because  she  has  no  tradition  upon  them, 
she  gives  no  interpretation  to  many  portions  of  the 
Scripture  ;  and  she  forbids  me  interpreting  them  for 
myself!  What  are  these  portions  worth  ?  Might 
they  not  be  as  well  omitted  ?     She  has  no  tradition 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  65 

and  cannot  interpret  them,  and  I  must  not !  Here 
is  a  large  portion  of  the  Bible  shut  up  from  the 
world,  as  if  never  revealed  !  And  yet  Paul  tells  me 
that  "  all  Scripture  is  profitable."  Can  that  be  an 
infallible  church  that  knows  nothing,  and  will  per- 
mit me  to  know  nothing,  about  a  large  portion  of 
God's  word  ? 

Her  infallibility  covers  only  the  field  of  doctrine 
and  morals,  and  extends  not  to  discipline  and  opi- 
nions. Now  a  list  of  the  doctrines  and  morals  on 
which  she  infallibly  decides,  and  of  the  discipline 
and  opinions  on  which  she  makes  no  such  decision, 
and  a  narrative  of  her  conduct  in  reference  to  them, 
would  be  a  most  curious  paper.  Will  you  favor 
the  world  with  it,  if  you  can  ?  In  matters  of  doc- 
trine, in  which  your  church  is  infallible,  a  man  may 
believe  as  he  desires,  if  he  only  clings  to  holy  mo- 
ther  ;  but  in  matters  of  discipline  and  opinion,  on 
which  she  has  made  no  decision,  if  he  acts  out  his 
honest  convictions,  he  will  have  emptied  on  him  the 
seven  vials  of  papal  wrath.  For  instance,  the  celi- 
bacy of  the  clergy,  communion  in  one  kind,  are 
matters  of  discipline,  and  yet  if  you.  Bishop  Hughes, 
like  Peter,  should  marry  a  wife — and  a  good  one 
would  be  a  great  comfort  to  you,  and  would  entitle 
you  more  fully  to  the  title  of  bishop — or  if  after  the 
example  of  Christ  you  should  administer  the  supper 
in  the  way  it  was  instituted,  you  would  soon  be  cast 
out  as  an  apostate.  Practically  her  infallible  doc- 
trines  arc   minor  matters,  whilst  those    embraced 

6* 


66 

under  discipline  and  opinions  are  matters  on  which 
she  has  covered  the  earth  with  the  blood  and  bones 
of  murdered  men.  What  is  the  judge  worth  who 
is  unable  to  decide  on  all  questions  fairly  brought 
before  him  arising  under  the  laws  ? — and  what  13 
the  infallibilit)'  of  your  church  worth  when  unable 
to  decide  on  the  simplest  questions  as  to  discipline 
and  opinions,  and  when  she  yet  sends  to  perdition 
all  those  who  deviate  from  her  practice  in  these 
things  ?  Paley  tells  us  of  a  fish  which,  when  pur- 
sued by  its  enemy,  casts  forth  a  liquid  that  muddles 
the  water  and  blinds  the  eyes  of  its  pursuer ; — such 
is  the  object  of  your  distinction  between  doctrines 
and  discipline,  but  it  has  not  the  effect  of  screening 
your  absurd  dogma  from  being  hunted  down  as  an 
impertinent  and  wicked  assumption. 

4.  If  pope  contradicted  pope,  council,  council,  if 
your  chu^'ch  has  taught  and  denied  in  one  age  what 
were  denied  and  taught  in  another,  as  has  been 
shown  a  thousand  times,  and  as  you  may  see  in 
Barrow,  Faber,  and  Edgar,  where  is  her  infallibi- 
lity ?  But  let  me  ask  your  attention  to  a  few  con- 
siderations bearing  on  the  reasonableness  of  the 
thing, 

Man  in  his  best  estate  is  fallible.  The  history  of 
your  own  church  teaches  this  beyond  any  other  un- 
inspired history  extant.  How  can  you  make  the 
fallible  infallible  ?  Can  a  whole  be  greater  than  its 
parts  ?  Does  the  coming  together  of  three  hundred 
fallible  men  make  them  infallible  ? 


TO   BISHOP    HUGHES.  67 

If  any  of  the  bodies  for  which  infallibility  13 
claimed  by  your  church  were  infallible,  how  ac- 
count for  their  awful  wickedness  and  grievous 
errors  ?  If  it  inheres  in  the  pope,  were  John,  Bene- 
dict, and  Alexander  infallible ;  men  born,  as  it 
would  seem,  to  show  how  far  human  nature  may 
sink  in  degeneracy  ?  Were  the  popes  raised  to  the 
chair  of  Peter  by  the  courtezans  Marozia  and  Theo- 
dora, infallible  ?  Genebrand  says  that  for  one  hun- 
dred ahd  fifty  years  they  were  apostatical  rather 
than  Apostolical,  and  yet  were  they  infallible  ? 
What  say  you,  Bishop  Hughes  ?     Yes,  or  no. 

But  perhaps  infallibility  was  in  the  councils. 
What  does  the  noble  Saint  Gregory  say  of  these  ? 
He  compares  their  dissension  and  wrangling  to  the 
quarrels  of  geese  and  cranes  gabbling  and  contend- 
ing in  confusion — and  represents  them  as  demorali2^ 
ing  instead  of  reforming.  That  of  Byzantine,  Nazi- 
anzen  describes  as  a  cabal  of  wretches  fit  for  the 
house  of  correction.  Cardinal  Huiro  thus  addressed 
the  council  of  Lyons  on  the  Avithdrawal  of  the  pope  ; 
"  Friends,"  said  he,  "  we  have  effected  a  work  of 
great  utility  and  charity  in  this  city.  When  we 
came  to  Lyons  we  found  only  three  or  four  brothels 
in  it ;  we  ;eave  at  our  departure  only  one  ;  but  that 
extends  from  the  eastern  to  the  western  gate  of  the 
city.'"'  For  other  details  as  to  the  councils,  I  refer 
you  to  Edgar,  where  papal  authorities  for  these 
Btatetnents  are  fully  cited.  And  yet  were  these 
councils,  canonically  convened,  infallible  ?     Does 


68  KIR  WAN's    REPLY 

consecration  by  your  church  render  a  ruffian  in- 
fallible ?  "  The"^Holy  Spirit,"  said  Cardinal  Man- 
drucio  at  Trent,  "  will  not  dwell  in  men  who  are 
vessels  of  impurity,  and  from  such,  therefore,  no 
right  judgment  can  be  expected  on  questions  of 
faith." 

Can  there  be  doctrinal  without  moral  infallibility  ? 
Is  not  moral  apostasy  as  culpable  as  doctrinal? 
Can  there  be  infallibility  without  inspiration,  without 
the  special  interposition  of  heaven  in  each  case  ? 
Can  it  be  transferred  from  pope  to  pope,  from  coun- 
cil to  council  ?  That  your  people  may  not  err,  does 
not  your  doctrine  require  infallible  bishops  to  explain 
the  decrees  of  popes  or  councils — and  infallible 
priests  to  explain  them  to  the  people,  and  the  people 
to  be  infallible  so  as  not  to  misinterpret  the  priest  ? 
Where  does  the  thing  find  an  end  ?  It  is  vain  that 
councils  send  forth  their  decrees  unless  there  is 
some  infallible  way  of  reaching  their  infallible 
meaning  ;  and  if  their  meaning  is  left  to  be  devel- 
oped by  the  "  private  reasoner,"  what  better  are 
you  off  than  if  you  permitted  him  to  read  and  to  de- 
velop the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  for  himself? 
Do  you  not  know  that  Soto,  a  Dominican,  and  Vega, 
a  Franciscan,  gave  contradictory  interpretations  to 
the  decisions  of  the  Council  of  Trent  on  Original 
Sin,  the  last  council  "  that  blessed  the  world  by  its 
orthodoxy,  or  cursed  it  by  its  nonsense  ?"  Can  it 
be  possible  that  your  claim  for  infallibility  can  have 
any  thing  to  sustain  it  save  "  old  wives'  fables  ?" 


TO    BISHOP    HU-GHES.  69 

The  assertion  of  it  would  seem  to  argue  either  idiocy 
or  insanity  ;  or  a  pious  knavery  which  would  seek 
to  entrap  men  by  logical  meshes  woven  out  of  as- 
sertion, falsehood,  and  imposture. 

Nor,  sir,  have  we  yet  reached  the  oottom  of  the 
absurdit}  .  Your  infallible  church  has  set  itself  in 
opposition  to  the  inspired  word  of  God,  and  to  cor- 
rect its  plainest  principles.  As  I  have  illustrated 
this  idea  in  some  of  my  former  letters,  I  can  only 
now  allude  to  it.  The  Bible  makes  God  the  only 
object  of  worship  ;  you  set  men  to  worship  the  Vir- 
gin, the  host,  the  cross,  relics,  pictures,  and  images. 
The  Bible  teaches  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  only  in- 
tercessor between  God  and  man ;  you  make  as 
many  intercessors  as  there  are  angels,  apostles,  mar- 
tyrs, and  saints,  and  send  sinners  to  Mary  more  fre- 
quently than  to  her  Son.  The  Bible  teaches  that 
nothing  is  sinful  but  a  want  of  conformity  to  the  law 
of  God  ;  vou  make  the  violation  of  vour  ceremonial 
laws  sinful,  and  damnable,  whilst  the  violation  of 
the  laws  of  God  is  a  venial  offence.  The  Bible 
teaches  that  to  serve  God  aright  we  must  be  regen- 
erated by  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  you  pronounce  this  a 
false  and  accursed  doctrine,  and  teach  that  we  are 
regenerated  by  baptism,  and  kept  in  a  state  of  sal- 
vation by  other  sacraments  and  ceremonies  which 
you  have  instituted.  But  I  will  not  proceed  in  the 
sickening  detail  which  proves,  beyond  doubt,  that 
your  infallible  church  has  devised  and  is  now  seek- 
ing to  propagate  the  merest  caricature  of  Christian- 


70  kirwan's  reply 

ity  ; — which  demonstrates  that  there  is  the  same 
difTcrence  between  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  and 
the  religion  of  Rome,  that  there  is  between  a  sensibhv. 
well  formed,  well  bred,  well  behaved  gentleman, 
and  a  harlequin  covered  with  gewgaws,  seeking  to 
amuse  the  people  by  his  dress  and  his  tricks. 

Now,  sir,  in  view  of  all  these  things,  will  you  not 
bear  with  the  infirmities  of  a  "  private  reasoner," 
which  compel  him  to  pronounce  your  doctrine  of 
infallibility  the  merest  assumption,  whose  only  object 
is  to  make  serfs  of  the  people,  and  tyrants  of  the 
priests  ?  Instead  of  being  infallible,  your  church  is 
not  credible  ;  her  testimony  is  not  to  be  relied  on, 
save  when  substantiated  by  other  witnesses.  This 
you  will  say  is  an  awful  proof  of  my  apostasy.  Be 
it  90.  Nor  have  I  any  idea  that  your  faith  in  the 
doctrine  is  a  whit  stronger  than  mine.  Cardinal 
Perron,  you  know,  when  dying,  pronounced  tran- 
substantiation  a  monster ;  and  some  priests  told 
Bishop  Usher,  that  the  chief  part  of  their  confession 
was  iheir  injideUty  in  the  doctrines  which  they 
taught,  and  for  which  they  mutually  absolved  one 
another.  Is  there  nothing  like  this  now  going  on  in 
New- York  ?  Have  you  never  made,  or  heard  such 
confessions  ?  , 

Yours, 

KiRWAN. 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES.  71 


LETTER  VIII. 

The  assertion  that  there  are  but  two  principles,  author'Ay  s.nd  reason,  fof 
the  determinina  of  the  meaniug  of  Sciipture,  examined  and  confuted. 

My  dear  Sir, — Having  shown  how  utterly  base- 
less and  false  are  the  main  positions  of  your  letters, 
and  exposed  their  utter  weakness  and  folly,  as  I 
fondly  hope  even  to  yourself,  1  might  now  let  them 
rest.  "  The  sympathies  of  my  Irish  nature  "  incline 
me  to  do  so,  as  I  fear  your  nervous  system  must  be 
already  sufficiently  excited ;  but  my  love  for  the 
race  surmounts  those  sympathies,  and  compels  me 
to  notice  what  you  say  about  "  private  reasoners." 
And  as  it  gives  room  for  new  and  curious  illustra- 
tion, I  will  devote  to  it  the  present  letter. 

In  paragraph  25,  you  say  that  there  are  but  two 
principles,  "  authority  and  reason,"  by  which  we 
can  truly  determine  the  doctrines  of  revelation. 
"  Authority  "  is  the  principle  of  the  papist ;  "  rea- 
son "  is  that  of  all  not  papists.  The  principle  of 
"  authority  "  leads  into  all  trutn ;  that  of  "  reascm  " 
into  all  error.  The  reasoner  cannot  "  make  an  act 
of  faith  " — the  highest  aspiration  of  his  mind  or  heart 
is  simply  an  "  opinion."  And,  you  say,  "  there  is 
not  a  single  expression  of  Holy  Writ  that  can  war- 


72  kirwan's  reply 

rant  the  private  reasoners  of  any  age,  whether  past 
or  present,  to  believe  that  they  can  be  saved,  so  long 
as  they  trust  to  their  own  individual  opinions  for  the 
attainment  of  the  truth,  and  the  means  of  spiritual 
life  and  participation  in  Christ."  And  all  who  now 
reject  the  authority  of  your  church  which  now  exer- 
cises  the  precise  authority  which  Christ  did  whilst 
upon  earth,  you  denounce  as  "  private  reasoners," 
incapable  of  faith,  and  as  "  necessarily  out  of  the 
way  which  leads  to  eternal  life."  This,  sir,  is  not 
speaking  in  Latin,  as  you  do  when  you  mumble 
masses ;  your  English  is  more  than  usually  plain 
here ;  and  so  will  mine  be,  in  examining  the  prac- 
tical bearing  of  this  cool  assumption  of  your  church 
to  think  for  every  body ;  of  this  cool  exclusion  from 
eternal  life  of  all  who  will  not  permit  you  to  think 
for  them,  and  who  dare  to  think  for  themselves. 

The  first  idea  suggested  by  all  your  dribble  on  the 
subject  through  half  a  dozen  of  letters  is,  that  you 
seem  to  regret  that  God  has  endowed  any  body,  save 
bishops  and  the  inferior  clergy,  with  the  faculty  of 
reason.  The  exercise  of  it  on  the  subject  of  reli- 
gion is  denounced  by  you  in  every  form  as  leading 
to  schism,  heresy,  and  hell.  Now,  sir,  if  the  exer- 
cise  of  my  reason  is  abstractedly  so  dangerous ;  if, 
in  fact,  when  exercised,  it  leads  to  such  awful  re- 
sults, how  can  you  account  for  it  that  the  Lord  has 
endowed  me  with  reason  at  all  ?  On  your  princi- 
ples would  it  not  be  better  that  I  should  have  been 
born  with  a  razor  in  my  hand  to  cut  my  throat,  than 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  73 

with  reason  in  my  mind  which  compels  me  to  think 
on  the  subject  of  religion  ?  Would  it  not  be  better 
for  all  your  purposes  that  I  should  have  no  reason  ? 
And  do  you  not  daily  find  the  simple  facts  that  God 
has  endowed  man  with  reason,  and  with  an  awful 
bias  to  exercise  it,  greatly  embarrassing  to  you  ? 
Do  not  these  facts  give  rise  to  nearly  all  the  difficul- 
ties with  which  you  have  to  contend  in  the  discharge 
of  your  apostolical  duties  ?  If  men  never  turned 
"  private  reasoners,"  yours  would  be  an  easy  and  a 
most  lucrative  task  ! 

With  your  theory  fully  carried  out,  and  all  "  pri- 
vate reasoning  "  fully  suppressed,  and  all  "  private 
reasoners"  killed  off,  after  the  manner  of  the  exter- 
mination of  the  Huguenots  in  France,  by  the  author- 
ity of  your  church,  earth  would  present  to  your  re- 
joicing eyes  an  Arcadian  scene  such  as  the  sun  has 
not  yet  illumined.  The  people  would  be  all  sheep 
— yes,  literal  sheep — the  pope  would  be  the  chief 
shepherd — you,  John  Hughes,  and  your  other  Right 
Reverend  brethren  would  be  his  watch-doo;s.  If 
one  of  tlie  poor  sheep  should  ever  think  of  straying 
from  your  stagnant  waters  after  a  clear  rivulet  flow- 
ing  cool  from  under  the  rock  at  which  to  quench  his 
thirst,  if  a  bark  would  not  terrify  him  back  to  his 
place,  he  would  be  soon  torn  to  pieces  as  a  warnin^j 
lo  all  the  flock  not  to  imitate  his  example.  And 
then  the  chief  shepherd  and  his  dogs  would  have  all 
the  flock  to  themselves,  from  Jie  wool  to  the  fat,  and 
from  horn  to  hoof.     And  nothing  prevents  your  get- 

7 


74  KIRWAN^S    REPLY 

ting  out  from  such  a  purgatory  of  clashing  opinions 
as  that  in  which  you  are  now  placed,  and  rising  up 
to  such  a  paradise  as  I  have  here  sketched,  but  that 
wicked  and  depraved  disposition  of  men  to  question 
your  authority,  and  to  use  their  "  private  reason." 
Considering  that  this  abominable  abomination  "  pri- 
vate reason  "  thus  excludes  you  from  the  paradise 
you  desire,  and  shuts  you  up  in  a  purgatory  from 
which  neither  the  efficacy  of  masses,  nor  "  all  the 
alms  nor  suffrages  of  the  faithful  "  can  deliver  you, 
you  have  by  no  means  sufficiently  denounced  it. 
There  is  no  hope  for  you  until  it  is  put  down  !  But 
I  would  advise  you  to  strike  at  the  fountain  or  cause 
of  the  evil,  which  is  God,  who  endowed  man  with 
reason  and  knowledge — who  has  given  him  such  a 
depraved  disposition  to  use  them,  and  who  has  com- 
manded him  to  give  "  to  every  man  a  reason  for  the 
hope  that  is  in  him  " — and  who  thus  invites  all  men, 
"  Come  now,  let  us  reason  together,  saith  the  Lord." 
Go  up,  like  a  man,  to  the  cause  of  the  evil  which 
you  deplore,  and  you  are  at  once  in  conflict  with 
your  Creator. 

The  next  idea  suggested  by  what  you  say  about 
"  private  reason  "  is  the  utter  inutility  of  the  Bible. 
There  are  but  two  principles  "  authority  and  rea- 
son "  by  which  we  can  know  its  meaning.  Au- 
thority is  in  the  hands  of  your  church  to  be  exercised 
as  she  wills :  to  read  the  Bible  and  reason  about  it 
'eads  to  hell.  Where,  then,  is  the  need  of  the  Bible 
at  all,  save  a  (ew  copies  for  the  Bishops  and  inferior 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  75 

clergy  which  they  may  occasionally  consult  for  the 
purpose  of  finding  out  chapter  and  verss  of  such 
texts  as  these  :  "  Thou  art  Peter,"  "  Confess  your 
sins  one  to  another."  Sir,  on  your  principles  there 
is  no  need  of  it ;  and,  hence,  in  purely  Catholic 
countries  you  dispense  with  it.  Do  you  remember 
how  many  Bibles  Borrow  could  find  in  Spain  ? 
How  many,  think  you,  could  be  purchased  in  the 
bookstores  of  Rome  '?  How  many,  think  you,  could 
be  found  among  the  peasantry  of  Munster  and  Con- 
naught,  who  yet  wear  the  yoke  of  your  church  ? 
If  all  collected,  I  think  they  would  not  add  mate- 
rially to  the  weight  of  the  bag  in  which  you  pack 
your  vestments  when  going  forth  on  some  of  your 
episcopal  visitations.  You  talk  about  the  Protestant 
translation  as  false — and  as  defective.  But  that  is 
all  in  the  air.  The  cause  of  your  opposition  to  the 
Bible  is  bound  up  with  your  principle — "  authority." 
What  men  read  they  will  use  their  private  reason 
about.  And  if  the  hidden  man  of  your  heart  were 
known,  it  would  be  seen  that  you  hate  the  circula- 
tion of  the.  Bible  as  much  as  you  hate  Kirwan's 
Letters,  as  the  one  is  the  cause  of  the  other.  Sir, 
there  is  no  possibility  of  sustaining  "  authority  " 
versus  "  private  reason,"  with  a  Bible  circulated  in 
whole  or  in  part.  So  awfully  fearful  are  you  upon 
this  point  that  many  of  your  inferior  clergy  never 
see  a  copy  of  the  Bible,  lest  they  should  become 
"private  reasoners."  Not  long  since  I  received  a 
visit  from  a  priest  who  acted  as  curate  in  Ireland, 


76  kirwan's  repl"? 

and  who  told  me  that  all  of  the  Bible  he  ever  saw, 
whilst  in  your  church,  were  the  small  portions  scat- 
tered, like  angel's  visits,  through  the  Mass  Book. 
Sir,  your  doctrine  of  "  authority  "  supersedes  the 
Bible  ;  and  its  circulation  leads  to  mortal  sin  be. 
cause  it  makes  men  "  private  reasoners."  What 
a  pity  the  Bible  was  ever  written  !  Would  not  this 
world  of  ours  be  a  clover  field  for  your  priests,  if 
the  Bible,  like  your  traditions,  had  only  been  left 
unwritten  and  unprinted  1  No  wpnder  that  the 
thunders  of  the  Vatican  are  hurled  at  our  Bible 
Societies,  which  are  so  awfully  multiplying  "  pri- 
vate reasoners."  But  mere  thunder,  though  noisy, 
is  harmless. 

There  is  yet  another  idea  connected  with  what 
you  say  about  "  authority  "  and  "  reason,"  which 
in  this  country  at  least  must  strike  one  as  singular. 
I  have  no  doubt  it  will  so  strike  yourself.  When 
two  clever  men  get  into  difficulty,  they  consent  to 
have  it  fairly  adjudicated,  and  to  abide  the  decision 
of  an  impartial  tribunal.  If  one  declines  such  a 
reference,  and  insists  on  having  it  his  own  way,  the 
fair  inference  would  be  that  he  was  conscious  of  be- 
ing in  the  wrong.  Between  the  intelligent  men  of 
our  race  and  your  cliurch  there  is  a  difficulty. 
Your  church  asserts  the  right  of  thinking  for  them, 
a  nd  damns  them  unless  they  permit  her  to  do  so ; 
they  deny  that  right.  How  i&  the  question  to  be 
settled  ?  They  are  an  interested  party,  because 
their  civil  and  spiritual  freedom  are  involved ;  and 


TO    BISHOP   HUGHES.  77 

SO  is  your  church,  because  if  decided  against  her, 
she  is  ever  afterwards  deprived  of  "  the  alms  and 
suffrages  of  the  faithful."  If  your  claim  is  true, 
they  are  slaves ;  if  false,  they  are  free,  and  youi 
craft  is  ended.  How  is  this  matter  to  be  decided  ? 
Your  church  replies,  "  With  me  is  the  authority  to 
bind  or  to  loose  ;  it  must  be  referred  to  me  as  the 
only  competent  authority."  'But  they  say,  "  No ; 
you  are  an  interested  party — you  have  millions  at 
stake — your  character  and  standing  before  heaven 
and  earth  are  at  stake — your  decision  must  be  par- 
tial. But  we  will  abide  the  decision  of  any  tribunal 
save  that  which  you  set  up."  But  your  church 
says,  "  No,  you  must  abide  hj  my  decision  or  he 
damned.''^  Sir,  were  men  in  conflict  but  for  a  dol- 
lar, this  would  wear  knavery  on  the  face  of  it ;  can 
it  wear  less  when  the  points  at  issue  are.  whether 
your  priests  shall  be  despots,  and  the  human  race 
their  pliant  serfs  ? 

There  is  yet  another  principle  connected  with 
your  doctrine  of"  authority  "  and  "  private  reason." 
The  man  that  believes  all  you  tell  him  "  makes  an 
act  of  faith  ;"  but  the  poor  "  private  reasoner  "  that 
goes  to  the  Bible  for  himself  can  form  only  an 
"  opinion  "  upon  any  subject.  To  illustrate.  When 
you  tell  a  poor  papist  who  believes  you,  that  Christ 
Jesus  is  co-equal  with  the  Father,  his  belief  of  what 
you  say  is  "  an  act  of  faUh  ;"  when  I  learn  the  same 
truth  from  the  Bible  and  believe  it,  with  me  it  is  only 
an  "opinion  !"     He  believes  on  "  authority  "  and  I 

7* 


78  kirwan's  reply 

am  a  "  private  reasoner."  His  "  act  of  faith  "  savet 
him  ;  my  "  opinion  "  damns  me  ;  when  his  belief 
and  mine  are  the  same,  with  only  this  difference,  he 
gets  his  "  faith  "  from  you  ;  I,  my  "  opinion  "  from 
the  Bible !  Sir,  this  is  something  more  than  drivel- 
ing nonsense.     It  is  contemptible  blasphemy. 

But  let  us  try  this  scheme  in  its  application  to 
some  texts  and  truths, 'that  we  may  see  how  it  works. 

"  Bishop  Hughes,"  says  John  Murphy,  "  what  is 
the  meaning  of  that  text  (James  5 :  16),  "  Confess 
your  faults  one  to  another,  and  pray ybr  one  another." 
"  Why,  John,"  you  reply,  "  it  means  confess  your 
sins  to  the  priest,  and  ask  the  priest  to  pray  for  you." 
John  believes,  and  makes  an  act  of  faith.  I,  a  little 
more  cautious,  look  at  the  text,  and  thus  reason 
about  it.  "  One  to  another  " — that  looks  very  much 
like  the  priest  confessing  to  me,  if  I  confess  to  the 
priest,  and  I  praying  for  the  priest,  if  the  priest 
prays  for  me.  I  look  a  little  farther  after  "  one  an- 
other "  or  "  one  to  another."  I  find  in  Heb.  3 :  13, 
the  following  words,  "  exhort  one  another."  Does 
this  mean  that  the  priest  must  exhort  me,  but  not  I 
the  priest  ?  Very  well.  I  find  the  following  words 
in  Eph.  4 :  32,  "  Be  kind  one  to  another,  tender- 
tiearted,  forgiving  one  another."  Does  this  mean 
that  the  priest  must  be  kind  and  tender-hearted  to 
me,  and  not  I  to  the  priest  ?  that  he  must  forgive 
me,  but  not  I  him  ?  What  say  you,  Bishop  Hughes  ? 
Yet  John  Murph)"  believes  you  and  makes  an  act 
of  faith,  and  goes  to  confession  and  pays  you  and 


TO   BISHOP    HUGHES.  79 

goes  to  heaven  ;  I,  a  "  private  reasoner  "  conclude 
you  pervert  the  Scriptures  to  make  a  gain  of  godli- 
ness, confess  my  sins  to  God,  and  for  my  opinion  go 
to  hell ! 

John  Murphy  again  asks,  "  Bishop,  what  is  the 
meaning  of  Mat.  26  :  26,  27  V  You  reply,  "  Why, 
John,  it  means,  that  Christ  transubstantiated  the  bread 
and  the  wine  into  his  own  body  and  blood,  and  that 
then  he  multiplied  himself  into  twelve,  and  that  then 
he  gave  himself  to  be  eaten  to  each  of  the  apostles, 
and  after  he  was  thus  eaten,  he  was  not  eaten  ;  he 
was  yet  alive  and  spoke  to  them."  With  his  eyes 
wonderfully  dilated,  he  asks,  "  Bishop,  is  this  done 
now  ?"  "  O  yes,  John,"  you  reply,  "  daily  in  the 
mass."  He  again  asks,  "  Bishop,  why  not  give  the 
bread  and  the  wine  now  to  the  people  V  "  The 
reason,  John,  is,"  you  reply,  "  that  as  the  wafer  is 
changed  into  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
there  is  no  need  of  it,  for  if  we  eat  the  whole  body, 
we  of  course  eat  the  blood  with  it."  John  is  satis- 
fied, makes  an  act  of  faith,  and  is  saved  ;  I,  looking 
a  little  farther  into  the  Scriptures,  soon  conclude  that 
the  passage  means,  that  the  broken  bread  repre- 
sented his  body  broken,  and  the  wine  in  the  cup  his 
blood  poured  out.  John  Murphy  for  his  act  of  faith 
is  saved ;  and  I,  poor  Kirwan,  for  my  opinion  am 
damned ! ! 

Such,  sir,  is  the  way  your  rule  works  as  to  texts. 
Let  us  now  see  how  it  works  as  to  some  important 
truths. 


80  kirwan's  reply 

John  Murphy  again  approaches  you  and  asks, 
"  Bishop,  how  can  I  be  saved  ?"  "  Wliy,  John," 
you  reply,  "  the  church  makes  that  very  plain  ; 
you  must  be  baptized,  and  go  to  mass,  and  perform 
penance — you  must  go  regularly  to  confession  ; 
when  dying  you  must  receive  extreme  unction  ; 
then  you  must  go  to  purgatory,  from  which  you  are 
to  be  delivered  by  the  efficacy  of  masses,  and  by  the 
alms  and  the  suffrages  of  the  faithful ;  and  then  you 
go  to  heaven,"  Amazed  at  the  process,  poor  John 
makes  an  act  of  faith  and  is  saved  :  I  turn  to  the 
Scriptures,  and  preferring  the  word  of  God  to  yours, 
believe  that  "  he  that  believeth  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  shall  be  saved."  John  Murphy  believes  you. 
and  is  saved  ;  I  believe  God  and  am  damned.  And 
so  on  to  the  end  of  the  chapter.  Why,  Bishop 
Hughes,  all  this  has  not  even  the  redeeming  quality 
of  being  good  nonsense  :  an  article  in  whose  pro- 
duction our  countrymen  are  not  usually  deficient, 
even  when  their  power  as  private  reasoners  is  at 
low  water  mark. 

Here,  sir,  I  will  close  my  reWew  of  your  reasons 
for  adherence  to  the  Roman  Catholic  church  as 
given  in  your  ten  letters  to  Dear  Reader.  Never 
were  reasons  more  baseless,  or  weaker,  presented 
to  the  human  mind  to  justify  either  opinions  or  con- 
duct. The  way  in  which  you  state  them  obviously 
shows  that  you  never  examined  them — that  you  re- 
ceived them  as  true  as  a  good  son  of  the  church, 
without  ever  asking  why  or  wherefore  in  reference 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  81 

to  them.  Your  reception  of  them  was  obviously  an 
act  of  faith,  and  not  an  opinion  formed  in  the  usual 
process  of  a  private  reasoner.  And  to  ask  me,  or 
any  sensible,  thinking  man,  to  believe  in  the  Catho- 
lic church  for  the  reasons  presented  in  your  letters, 
is  on  a  par  with  asking  me  to  believe  that  the  little 
wafer  made  of  flour,  which  you  lay  upon  the  tongue 
of  a  papist  bowing  before  your  altar,  is  transub- 
stantiated by  a  miserably  mumbled  ceremony  into 
the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 

Balaam's  ass  would  never  have  had  a  name  or  a 
place  on  the  page  of  history  were  it  not  for  the  whip- 
ping which  his  master  gave  him  ;  and  were  it  not 
for  that  whipping  never  would  hairs  from  his  tail 
have  been  preserved  amid  the  sacred  relics  of  Rome. 
Similar,  I  fear,  will  be  the  effect  of  this  review  in 
bringing  up  to  public  notice  letters,  which  have  nei- 
ther sense,  truth,  wit,  logic,  or  even  "  clever  scur- 
rility "  to  recommend  them,  and  which  if  let  alone 
might  have  reached  the  very  depths  of  oblivion  by 
the  massive  weight  of  their  dullness. 

But,  sir,  although  through  with  your  ten  letters, 
the  end  is  not  yet. 

Yours, 

KiRWAN. 


KIRWAN  S    REPLY 


LETTER  IX. 

The  Bishop's  six  letters  to  Kirwan,  reviewed. 

My  dear  Sir, — I  wish  in  the  present  epistle  to 
notice,  in  the  briefest  way,  those  last  and  curious 
productions  of  your  pen,  your  six  letters  to  Kirwan. 
If  your  papal  assumptions  and  papal  logic  made 
your  ten  letters  to  "  Dear  Reader  ^'  intolerably  dull, 
you  have  cast  into  these  so  much  low  personality, 
so  much  Episcopal  impertinence,  and  such  a  strong 
spice  of  Irish  ill  humor,  as  to  make  them  quite  in- 
teresting. They  are  certainly  readable  produc- 
tions, and  give  us  new  revelations  both  as  to  your 
Jine  taste,  and  wonderful  good  nature.  You  cannot 
expect  that  I  will  permit  you  to  raise  new  issues 
between  you  and  myself,  so  as  to  divert  the  public 
mind  from  the  points  to  which  I  have  solicited  its 
and  your  attention  ; — nor  can  you  expect  that  I 
could,  for  a  moment,  descend  to  the  low  level  along 
which  in  those  letters  you  have  seen  fit  to  move. 
Yet  I  would  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  a 
few  remarks  in  reference  to  them.  And  this  I  will 
do,  after  the  manner  of  some  old  preachers,  under 
a  few  heads. 


TO    EIciHOP    HUGHES.  83 

1.  Your  letters  give  us  an  amusing  view  of  the 
manner  in  which  you  keep  your  promises.  In 
your  first  series  you  say,  "  I  propose  to  publish  a 
series  of  letters  on  the  same  great  topics  which 
Kirwan  has  discussed."  These  letters  drew  "their 
slow  length  along,"  until  they  reached  No.  10,  and 
the  ''  great  topics  which  Kirwan  has  discussed  " 
were  left  untouched.  Feeling  that  you  could  not 
write  such  letters  upon  fish  and  eggs,  you  dropped 
them  at  the  commencement  of  Lent ;  they  have 
never  since  been  resumed.  In  your  second  series, 
you  say,  "  Your  letters  purport  to  explain  the 
reasons  why  you  left  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  ; 
.  .  .  the  object  of  mine  will  be  to  review  those 
reasons."  And  yet  in  your  six  letters  there  is  not 
the  most  remote  allusion  to  '-  those  reasons  !"  Is 
this  owing,  sir,  to  a  want  of  memory,  or  to  the 
want  of  ability  ?  Or  is  it  a  sample  of  the  way  in 
which  you  generally  meet  your  promises  ?  The 
facts  certainly  show  that  you  are  a  most  protnising 
man. 

2.  Your  letters  give  us  an  interesting  view  of 
your  moral  courage.  When  you  commenced  your 
first  scries  we  Protestants  certainly  felt,  and  said, 
"  Now  we  are  ijoinu:  to  have  a  tract  for  the  times, 

CO  ' 

and  worthy  of  the  controversy."  But  the  little 
spice  of  the  first  letter  was  not  found  in  any  other 
of  the  series,  and  they  became  utterly  insipid,  and 
died  at  the  sight  of  Lent !  When  the  second  series 
commenced,  we  all  said,  and  the  papers,  political 


84  kirwan's  reply 

and  religious,  said,  "  Now  we  are  going  to  have  a 
racy  and  manly  discussion."  Six  letters  are  pub- 
lishnd  without  touching  a  single  topic  in  contro- 
versy, and  again  you  retire  !  And  almost  before 
your  quill  was  dry,  you  were  off  for  Halifax  ! 
And  when  we  now  inquire  after  your  Right  Rev- 
erence,  the  only  reply  we  receive  is,  "  He  is  gone 
to  Halifax  !"  If  you  compare  my  desertion  of  the 
Catholic  church  when  a  boy  to  the  desertion  of  our 
flag  by  some  of  our  soldiers  in  Mexico,  to  what  can 
we  liken  your  desertion  of  her  in  her  present  exi- 
gencies ?  For  a  mere  stripling  recruit  to  run  away 
in  a  time  of  peace,  is  a  small  matter ;  but  for  the 
General  in  Command  to  flee  to  Halifax  in  the  very 
midst  of  the  battle,  is  a  very  different  affair!  I 
hope  you  can  satisfy  "  the  illustrious  Pope  Pius  IX" 
as  to  all  this  ! 

3.  Your  letters  furnish  a  very  nice  illustration 
of  an  easy  way  of  getting  out  of  a  difficulty.  You 
expected  to  make  short  work  of  Kirwan's  Letters 
when  you  commenced  ansv/ering  without  reading 
them.  But  as  you  read  on,  you  found  the  nuts 
were  a  little  harder  to  crack  than  you  had  antici- 
pated ;  and  you  made  the  commencement  of  Lent 
an  excuse  for  dropping  them.  But  this  displeased 
your  priests  and  people,  and,  as  the  Freeman's 
Journal  testifies,  you  were  called  upon  to  give  to 
the  letters  of  Kirwan  a  direct  answer.  This  Pa- 
pists and  Protestants  alike  desired,  and  demanded. 
As  there  was  no  way  of  evasion,  in  an  evil  hour 


TO    EISHOP    HUGHES.  85 

you  consented  to  comply  with  the  demand ;  and, 
hence,  those  six  unfortunate  letters  which  have  so 
widely  excited  a  smile  at  your  expense.  In  these 
it  is  obvious  that  you  have  read  Kirwan.  Your 
temper  and  your  quotations  are  proof  of  this. 
Again  you  find  the  nuts  too  hard  to  crack ;  and 
seeing  that  instead  of  crushing  them  you  were  cover- 
ing  your  own  fingers  with  blood  and  bruises,  you 
cry  out  at  the  close  of  the  sixth  letter,  "  You  wish 
me  to  dispute  with  you  on  matters  of  general  con- 
troversy ;  I  must  beg  leave  to  decline  the  proposed 
honor ;  I  cannot  consent  to  dispute  with  any  man 
for  whom  I  feel  no  respect."  And  after  bowing 
me  *'  for  the  present,  farewell,"  you  are  ofi*  foi 
Halifax  !  That  is,  after  laboring  through  three 
months  of  the  last  winter,  and  sweltering  through 
six  weeks  of  the  present  summer,  to  confute  me,  in 
vain,  you  find  out  that  you  have  no  respect  for  me, 
decline  further  controversy,  and  flee  to  Halifax  ! 
So  that  when  a  man  is  fairly  worsted,  he  has  only 
to  find  out  that  he  has  no  respect  for  his  antagonist, 
and  then  he  can  retire  crowned  with  laurels  from 
the  controversy  !  How  easily,  according  to  this 
rule,  could  the  dastardly  Santa  Anna  have  gained 
a  complete  victory  over  the  gallant  Scott ;  and  even 
after  the  Yankees  were  reveling  in  the  Halls  of  the 
Montezumas  !  He  had  only  to  find  out  that  he  had 
no  respect  for  him    . 

Now,  sir,  I  shrewdly  conjecture  that  this  way  of 
getting  out  of  a  difficult v  is  borrowed  from  "  old 

8 


86 

Ireland."     Did  you   ever  go  to  school  in  Ireland ; 
or  were  those  awful  laws,  of  wliich  you  speak  in 
your  last  letter,  in  force,  until  after  your  emigration  ? 
Perhaps  if  you  did  you  may  remember  that  Irish 
boys   are  very  fond  of  fighting    after   school.     A 
very  odd  scene,  which  was  acted  one  evening,  is 
now  before  my  mind,  as  if  it  transpired  but  yes- 
terday.    There  was  a  large  clumsy  fellow,  that  by 
his  boasting  and  violent  gesticulations  kept  all  the 
boys  for  some  weeks  in  dread  of  him  ;  and  there  was 
a  thin  but  muscular  boy,  who  at  length  resolved  to 
meet  him  in  a  fair  boxing-match.     Those  of  us  in  the 
secret  retired  to  a  secluded  spot  and  formed  a  ring ; 
and  the  fight  commenced.     It  was  soon  apparent, 
to  the  joy  of  us  all,  that  the  thin  muscular  boy  was 
an  overmatch  for  his  opponent.     In  every  round  he 
had  signally  the  advantage.     After  nearly  as  many 
rounds  as  you  have   written   letters  to  and  about 
Kirwan,   the  large  clumsy   fellow,   with   his   eyes 
swelled  up,  and  his  nose  and  mouth  streaming  blood, 
and  scai'cely  able  to  stand  up,  thus  addressed  the  boy 
that  almost  pounded  him  to  jelly,  "  You  are  a  mean, 
dirty  blackguard  for  whom  I  have  no  respect,  and  I 
will  fight  no  more  with  you."     Feeling  this  an  ad- 
ditional insult,  his  antagonist  bared  his  arms  for  an- 
other round,  but  the  beaten  boy  fled  blubbering  from 
the  ring  ;  but  whither  he  fled  I  have  no  means  of 
knowing.     Perhaps  your  Reverence  may  find  him 
in  Halifax.     So  you  see  your  way  of  getting  out  of 
a  difficulty,  although  ingenious,  is  not  new.     And 


'  TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  87 

both   you  and  the  public  know  it  is  not  the  true 
reason. 

4.  Your  letters  reveal  what  may  be  regarded  as 
a  compound  estimate  of  those  which  I  have  address- 
ed to  you.  In  your  first  series  you  speak  of  them 
as  "  possessing  a  sprightliness  of  style  which  ren- 
ders them  a  pleasing  contrast  to  the  filthy  volumes 
that  have  been  written  on  the  same  side  ;'"' — and  not 
long  afterwards  you  speak  of  them  as  containing  only 
"  clever  scurrility."  In  your  six  letters,  you  say 
of  mine,  that  "  so  far  as  regards  the  grammatical 
construction  of  phrases,  and  a  correct  and  almost 
elegant  use  of  Anglo-Saxon  words,  they  are  not  un- 
worthy of  the  country  which  produced  a  Dean  Swift, 
or  a  Goldsmith."  This,  from  a  competent  critic 
would  be  high  praise  ;  and  even  from  jIdu,  it  shows 
that  your  miserably  exclusive  and  debasing  reli- 
gious system  has  not  suppressed  all  the  generous 
pulsations  of  your  Irish  heart.  But  then  you  speak 
of  them  afterwards  as  written  in  the  "  true  wind- 
bag style."  Now,  sir,  how  to  reconcile  these  things, 
I  know  not,  save  on  the  ground  that  the  "  wind- 
bag "  is  yours,  and  that  Kirwan's  Letters  have 
pricked  it,  until  it  has  fallen  into  a  state  of  collapse 
beyond  the  power  of  a  rew  inflation. 

5.  They  reveal  a  great  dishonesty  in  evading  the 
point  of  a  statement.  The  Editor  of  the  Observer 
has  already  exposed  your  miserable  and  truthless 
perversion  of  the  scene  at  the  Confessional,  and,  as 
you  well  know,  drawn  by  me  to  the  life.     The  ex- 


88  kirwan's  reply 

posure  of  that  single  perversion  is  enough  to  brand 
you  for  life  as  an  unfair  man.  1  say  no  more  about 
it.  So  you  evade  the  point  of  the  statement  as  to 
the  priest  reading  a  dead  list  from  the  altar  for  so 
much  a  head  per  year  to  pray  them  out  of  purgatory. 
Do  you  deny  that  such  a  list  is  read,  and  that  unless 
the  priest  is  paid  he  drops  the  names  ?  That  is  the 
point  of  the  statement.  The  fact  you  deny  is,  a  fact 
not  questioned  by  me,  that  any  priest  ever  decides 
when  any  soul  leaves  purgatory  f  I  have  no  doubt 
they  will  keep  souls  there  as  long  as  they  can  gel 
money  to  say  mass  for  them,  if  it  were  until  St. 
Tibb's  eve,  which  is  the  eve  after  the  final  consum- 
mation. 

So  you  evade  the  point  of  the  facts  as  to  the 
drunken  priests.  You  say,  and  truly,  that  such 
facts  form  no  argument  against  religion,  or  any  form 
of  it ;  and  that  you  have  seen  Protestant  ministers 
in  state  prison  for  worse  sins  than  drunkenness. 
But  the  point  of  the  statement  is,  that  these  drunken 
worthless  wretches,  whether  deposed  or  recti  in  ec- 
clesia,  were  miracle  workers,  and  were  daily  resorted 
to  for  miraculous  cures  both  as  to  men  and  cattle, 
and  for  which  they  were  paid  in  money  and  Irish 
whisky  !  That,  sir,  is  the  point.  Have  you  ever 
seen  a  Protestant  minister  deposed  for  drunkenness, 
or  in  a  state  prison  for  a  criminal  offence,  resorted 
to  by  Protestants  for  miraculous  cures,  and  paid  for 
them  in  money  or  whisky  ?  If  not,  where  is  the 
point  of  your  parallel  ?     And  so  as  to  "  St.  John's 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES.  89 

Well."  You  say  that  you  "  know  nofhing  about  it,^'^ 
and  yet  you  pronounce  the  story  a  fabrication  !  If 
you  know  nothing  about  i^,  what  right  have  you  to 
say  it  is  untrue,  when  millions  of  living  witnesses 
misjht  be  collected  in  Ireland  to  the  truth  of  the 
statement — when  the  well  is  there  to  testify  for  it- 
self!  Sir,  is  the  story  about  St.  Patrick's  Well  in 
the  County  Down  a  fabrication,  whose  orgies  are  a 
disgrace  to  the  civilized  world  ?  Are  the  Seven 
Stations  at  or  near  Athlone  a  fabrication,  where 
feats  of  superstition  are  yearly  performed,  which 
cast  into  the  shade  those  of  the  Hindoo  fakiers  ?  It 
is  no  wonder  you  are  ashamed  and  vexed  when 
the  deep  degradation  to  which  popery  has  reduced 
our  unhappy  country,  is  exposed  to  the  indignant 
scorn  of  free  and  intelligent  American  citizens ; — it 
is  no  wonder  when  you  seek,  in  any  way,  to  escape 
from  the  obloquy  to  which  the  upholding  of  such  a 
system  subjects  you. 

6.  Your  letters  exhibit  a  great  dislike  for  the 
reduciio  ad  ahsurdum.  And  no  wonder,  when  your 
system  offers  so  many  and  such  strong  temptations 
to  use  it.  And  yet,  you  know,  that  it  is  a  legiti- 
mate way  of  reasoning.  I  hope  you  cannot  say  of 
this,  as  of  St.  John's  Well,  that  you  know  nothing 
about  it.  I  am  striving  to  show  the  absurdity  of 
literal  interpretation  as  you  use  it  to  prove  certain 
papal  tenets  ;  and  I  ask  how,  ly  your  rule,  you 
escape  the  inference  of  being  a  devil  whilst  uphold- 
ing the  doctrine  of  clerical  celibacy  which  Paul 

8* 


90  kirwan's  reply 

pronounces  a  doctrine  of  devils  ?  My  object  is  to 
show  the  absurdity  of  your  rule,  and  yet  you  seein 
as  vexed  about  it  as  if  the  budding  horns  had 
already  appeared  upon  your  temples !  So  as  to 
the  text,  "  he  that  eateth  this  bread  shall  never 
hunger."  The  object  is  to  show  the  unspeakable 
absurdity  of  your  rule.  If  that  rule  is  true,  then 
all  that  you  have  to  do  is  to  give  your  wafer  to  the 
poor  famishing  Irish,  and  they  hunger  no  more. 
This  you  pronounce  "  a  horrible  pun  on  the  words 
of  the  Saviour;"  you  mistake, — it  is  a  horrible 
blow  at  your  ridiculous  interpretation  of  "  this  is 
my  body."  And  because  the  blow  is  so  heavy,  it 
is  immediately  big  with  "impiety  and  inhumanity.'* 
Now,  sir,  the  way  for  you  to  get  rid  of  all  that  kind 
of  argument  is,  to  withdraw  the  premises  on  which 
it  is  built ;  or  when  you  see  tliat  your  premises 
lead  to  such  absurd  consequences,  to  reject  them. 
It  will  do  you  no  good  to  get  vexed  about  it. 

7.  Your  letters  also  exhibit  wonderfully  cogent 
proofs  of  my  infidelity.  True,  all  we  Protestants 
are  pronounced  infidels  by  you  because  we  are  un- 
able "  to  make  an  act  of  faith  ;"  but  the  proofs  of 
my  infidelity  are  extra,  and  are  furnished  by  my 
letters.  The  first  is,  I  appeal  to  "  common  sense  " 
very  often.  The  second  is,  I  eat  meat  on  Friday, 
and  think  it  neither  injures  the  bodies  nor  the  souls 
of  men.  The  third  is,  I  believe  that  intelligent 
"Worship  is  only  acceptable  to  God  nor  beneficial  to 
me.     The  fourth  is,  I  do  not  believe  that  you  can 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  91 

make  God  out  of  a  flour  wafer.  The  fifth  is,  I 
do  not  believe  that  Mary  was  the  mother  of  God. 
The  sixth  is,  I  do  not  sufficiently  reverence  Mary, 
only  speaking  of  her  as  "  a  good  woman."  The 
seventh  is,  I  do  not  highly  enough  value  the  lubri- 
cation of  an  old  sinner,  when  dying,  with  olive  oil. 
The  eighth  is,  I  believe  it  is  as  acceptable  an  act 
to  God  to  worshio  the  head  of  Balaam's  ass,  as  a 
human  skull  said  to  be  that  of  the  Apostle  Paul. 
And  all  these  specifications  are  melted  down  and 
moulded  into  oiie  great  and  grand  charge,  "  my  in- 
sult to  the  mysteries  of  the  Catholic  faith."  Well, 
sir,  if  these  are  proofs  of  my  infidelity,  I  plead 
guilty.  But  let  me  inform  you  that  I  draw  a  dis- 
tinction between  Bible  and  papal  mysteries ; — the 
first  I  receive  as  inscrutable  and  adorable ;  the 
second  1  reject  as  the  m^/steries  of  iniquity.  Per- 
haps my  letters  are  too  much  pervaded  by  what 
you  are  pleased  to  call  "  a  silvery  thread  of  wit 
which  is  unmistakably  Irish,"  but  I  have  long  ago 
concluded  that  the  scaly  hide  of  the  Beast  was  im- 
pervious to  reason  and  argumentation,  and  that  the 
time  has  come  for  Wit  and  Ridicule  and  Carica- 
ture to  empty  upon  the  monster  their  quiver  of 
arrows.  There  are  some  thin2:s  too  absurd  to  waste 
reason  upon ;  there  is  a  point  beyond  which  to 
reason  is  casting  pearls  before  swine,  and  where 
we  must  answer  focls  according  to  their  folly.  I 
do  not  wonder  that  a  mind  so  seemingly  supersti- 
tious as  is  yours,  should  pronounce  me  occasionally 


92  kirwam's  reply 

profane  ;  but  perhaps  you  may  remember  the  story 
of  Diodorus  about  the  Roman  who  madvertently 
killed  a  cat  in  Egypt,  one  of  the  gods  of  the  land. 
So  exasperated  were  the  populace  that  they  ran  in 
frenzy  to  his  house,  and  neither  the  files  of  soldiers 
drawn  up  for  his  protection,  nor  the  terror  of  the 
Roman  name  could  save  him  from  being  torn  to 
pieces.  In  times  of  famine  the  Egyptians  would 
kill  and  eat  one  another  before  they  would  kill  an 
ox,  a  dog,  an  ibis,  or  a  cat !  These  were  their 
gods,  and  to  treat  them  otherwise  than  with  the 
most  profound  reverence  was  unpardonable  pro- 
fanity ! ! 

1  accept,  sir,  most  cheerfully,  the  offer  which  you 
make  to  prove  one  of  my  statements,  which  you 
question,  a  fabrication,  by  a  formal  investigation,  on 
one  condition,  which  I  hope  you  will  have  the  sense 
and  courage  to  grant.  The  condition  is  this.  You 
say  that  you  do  transubstantiate  a  little  wafer  into 
tlie  real  and  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  that 
you  do  this  whenever  and  wherever  you  say  mass. 
Now  "  1  am  willing  to  go  to  any  reasonable  expense 
to  prove  this  a  fabrication,  if  either  you  or  any  other 
bishop  or  priest  have  the  courage  to  meet  me  in  a 
formal  investigation."  This  will  incur  but  little 
expense — it  can  be  done  at  St.  Patrick's,  or  at  St. 
Peter's,  or  at  your  own  house.  You  can  select 
three  out  of  the  five  judges.  We  will  first  take  the 
wafer  and  examine  it.  You  may  then  say  high  and 
low  mass  over  it,  and  take  it  through  all  the  required 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  93 

lliftings  and  lowerings  needful  to  transubstantiate  it, 
and  if  it  is  not  the  identical  wafer  it  was  when  we 
put  it  into  your  hands  then  we  will  submit  to  be 
branded  as  blasphemers  ;  but  if  it  is,  we  will  let 
you  off,  without  any  brand,  simply  as  an  impostor. 
The  offer  which  you  make  would  lead  to  a  sea  voy- 
age, and  would  require  the  raising  of  the  dead,  and 
would  lead  to  some  expense ;  but  this  can  be  done 
in  a  day,  and  I  will  agree  to  pay  the  bill. 

If  you  reject  this  form  of  the  condition,  I  will 
make  another.  Your  olive  oil,  blessed  on  Maunday 
Thursday,  you  represent  as  possessing  wonderful 
efficacy,  when  rubbed  on  a  dying  sinner  according 
to  law.  "  I  am  willing  to  go  to  any  reasonable  ex- 
pense to  prove  this  a  fabrication ;"  and  that  your 
olive  oil,  under  these  circumstances,  has  not  a  whit 
greater  efficacy  than  whale  oil,  or  bear's  oil,  or 
goose  grease.  And  again,  I  will  leave  to  you  the 
selection  of  three  out  of  five  judges.  When  these 
offers  are  accepted,  and  these  questions  are  settled, 
then  we  will  make  the  required  arrangements  to 
meet  the  challenge  which  you  throw  out  to  myself 
or  Mr.  Prime.  May  I  hope  to  hear  from  you  as 
soon  as  it  will  meet  your  convenience  after  your  re- 
turn from  Halifax  ? 

In  case  you  should  resume  this  controversy,  for 
the  third  time,  permit  me,  as  your  friend,  to  give 
you  a  few  words  of  advice. 

1.  Keep  your  temper.  A  bishop  should  be  no 
brawler.     Good  nature  is  the   very  air  of  a  good 


94  kirwan's  reply 

mind,  the  sign  of  a  large  and  generous  soul,  and  tlie 
soil  in  which  virtue  prospers. 

2.  Remember  that  rude  assaults  upon  an  oppo- 
nent do  not  refute  his  arguments.  You  grievously 
complain  of  them  in  your  own  case  ;  can  they  be 
right  as  to  me  ?  If  I  were  all  you  say  of  me,  and 
as  much  beyond  that  as  that  is  beyond  the  truth, 
that  would  not  prove  true  the  absurdities  of  Roman- 
ism— that  would  not  prove  that  you  can  create  God, 
and  forgive  sin, — or  that  your  religion  is  any  thing 
else  but  a  peacock  religion,  which  has  nothing  use- 
ful or  attractive  about  it  save  its  glittering  plumage. 

3.  Remember  that  what  you  write  may  possibly 
live  after  you  are  dead  ;  and  that  your  office  as  a 
bishop  gives  not  the  weight  of  a  feather  to  your  weak 
arguments,  whilst  it  renders  your  vulgarity  doubly 
vulgar.  In  this  country  no  man  is  sustained  by  his 
station  ;  unless  he  graces  it,  he  disgraces  himself. 
The  person  who  raises  himself  to  station,  name,  and 
influence,  is  worthy  of  double  honor  ;  but  in  case 
such  a  person  should  rise  from  a  cabbage  garden  to 
a  mitre,  he  ought  to  know  that  the  line  of  conduct 
which  would  not  particularly  dishonor  the  hoe  or 
the  spade,  would  reflect  no  enduring  reputation  upon 
the  crook  and  the  crosier. 

Adherence  to  this  advice,  if  it  corrects  not  your 
principles,  will  have,  at  least,  a  benign  influence  on 
your  manners.  Farewell.  May  you  be  brought  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus. 

Yours, 

KiRWAN. 


TO   BISHOP   HUGHES.  95 


LETTER  X. 

AN  APPEAL  TO  ALL  ROMAN  CATHOLICS. 

My  dear  Friends, — In  closing  these  letters,  as 
with  the  two  series  hitherto  published,  I  turn  from 
Bishop  Hughes  to  you.  Many  of  you  have  not  been 
uninterested  readers  of  my  letters  ;  nor  of  the  con- 
troversy, so  far  as  it  has  assumed  that  character, 
between  Bishop  Hughes  and  myself.  And  whilst 
the  prejudices  of  education,  and  your  respect  for 
official  station,  would  naturally  lead  you  to  take 
sides  with  him,  I  am  thankful  to  know  that  the  gen- 
erous impulses  of  many  of  you,  and  your  desire  to 
know  the  truth,  have  led  you  to  resolve  that  I  should 
have  fair  play.  I  have  appeared  before  you  with 
no  crosses  before  my  name — with  no  ecclesiastical 
titles  after  it — making  no  flourish  of  trumpets  from 
the  places  of  brief  authority,  and  with  the  one  sim- 
ple desire  to  unfold  before  your  eyes  the  religious 
system  which  has  oppressed  your  fathers,  and  which 
in  its  ceremonial  exactions  has  become  too  heavy  for 
the  earth  any  longer  jo  bear.  And  I  am  thankful 
that  so  many,  educated  as  you  and  I  were  in  our 
youth,  have  been  led  by  these  letters  to  seek  the  re- 


96  kirwan's  reply 

ligion  of  Christ  and  of  the  Bible  among  Protestants, 
And  whilst  there  are  many  of  you  whose  micds, 
through  priestly  interferences,  have  been  so  imbued 
with  prejudices  as  to  repel  all  approach  to  you,  how- 
ever  kind,  with  the  lamp  of  life  and  light,  yet  this  is 
by  no  means  the  case  with  you  all.  To  this  latter 
class,  the  intelligent  and  candid  of  your  nuniber,  who, 
in  this  free  land,  are  determined  to  think  for  your- 
selves, I  now  appeal. 

The  history  of  my  "  Letters  to  Bishop  Hughes  " 
is  a  very  short  one.  Whilst  yet  in  my  minority, 
and  nearly  thirty  years  ago,  I  left  the  Rcwnan  Cath- 
olic Church.  Motives  that  I  now  need  not  detail, 
led  me  to  write  those  letters  in  which  I  have  stated 
the  reasons  which  induced  me  to  give  up  the  reli- 
gion of  the  priest  for  that  of  the  Bible.  To  these 
letters  Bishop  Hughes  attempted  an  indirect  reply 
in  ten  letters  ;  and  broke  down  in  the  midst  of  the 
discussion  at  the  commencement  of  last  Lent.  As 
these  had  nothing  in  them  to  answer  my  objections, 
or  to  satisfy  your  inquiries,  you  asked  for  something 
else.  Hence  the  six  letters  entitled  "  Kirwan  Un- 
masked," in  which,  after  abuse  without  stint  or 
sense,  and  without  answering  one  solitary  objection, 
he  again  breaks  down  at  the  close  of  the  sixth,  and 
flees  to  Halifax.  And  this,  my  third  series,  which 
I  now  bring  to  a  close,  is  designed  as  a  reply  to  those 
addressed  by  him  to  "  Dear  Reader,"  and  to  me, 
Kirwan. 

The  history  of  the  Bishop  in  the  concern  is  about 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  97 

as  short.  When  my  letters  first  appeared,  he  could 
not  condescend  to  answer  them  !  He  then  com- 
menced answering,  without  reading  them !  and 
without  meeting  an  objection  stated  by  me,  he  broke 
down  with  the  tenth  letter.  When  goaded  by  Cath- 
olics and  Protestants,  until  he  could  stand  it  no 
longer,  he  resolved  on  a  direct  answer  to  my  objec- 
tions ;  and  again  he  broke  down  at  the  close  of  the 
sixth  letter,  without  answering  one  of  them. 
Thinking  that  it  would  answer  all  his  purposes  with 
you  to  abuse  me,  he  writes  his  six  wonderful  letters, 
which  deserve  a  place  in  the  museum  as  a  speci- 
men of  the  controversial  taste  and  ability  of  popish 
priests,  and  again  breaks  down,  and  flees  beyond 
seas  to  hide  the  shame  of  his  wickedness !  How 
high  his  calculations  on  the  strength  of  your  preju- 
dices, and  on  the  weakness  of  your  common  sense  ! 
Having  usurped  the  power  of  thinking  for  you,  he 
takes  for  granted  that  any  kind  of  episcopal  non- 
sense will  satisfy  you  !  But  he  is  mistaken  ;  as 
multitudes  of  you  declare  that  his  silence  would  be 
far  better  than  what  he  has  said,  and  would  have 
inflicted  less  injury  on  Popery  in  this  country. 

Such  being  the  history  of  the  letters,  look  for  a 
moment  at  the  state  of  the  controversy.  There,  in 
my  first  and  second  series,  lie  my  objections  to  tlie 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  abused  from  Maine  to 
Mexico,  but  unanswered.  Arid  I  defy  Bishop 
Hughes,  and  all  his  mitred  brethren  on  this  continent y 
to  answer  them  on  Scriptural  and  common  sense  prin- 

9 


96  kirwan's  keplt 

ciples,  to  the  satisfaction  of  any  reasonahle  man. 
The  bishop  has  published  ten  letters  giving  his  rea- 
sons for  adherence  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
out  of  whose  pale  there  is  no  salvation.  These  rea- 
sons I  have  shown  to  be  mere  and  miserable  as- 
sumptions, and  utterly  insufficient  to  justify  the 
faith  or  the  practice  of  any  living  man.  Bishop 
Hughes  would  not  ask  vour  note  for  a  do! la",  had 
he  no  stroncrer  reasons  for  askinirit  than  those  which 
he  has  given  to  bind  you  to  the  Catholic  Church  ; 
and  if  he  should  so  impose  upon  you  as  to  secure 
your  note  for  no  stronger  reasons,  you  might  sue 
him  for  taking  from  you  your  money  under  false 
pretences,  and  send  him,  if  not  to  purgatory,  at  least 
to  state  prison,  to  atone  for  his  crime. 

Such,  then,  is  the  state  of  this  controversy. 
There  lie  my  objections  to  popery  unanswered. 
Let  Bishop  Hughes  ansioer  them,  if  he  can.  There 
are  his  reasons  for  adherence  to  the  Catholic  Church 
confuted.  Let  him  reconstruct  his  argument  if  he 
can.  And  all  that  he  has  yet  done  is,  to  abuse  me 
in  a  way  unbecoming  a  bishop,  for  first  riddling  his 
building?  and  then  takirg  awav  its  foundations. 
And  because  the  hopes  of  his  gain  are  gone,  he  and 
his  priests,  were  it  in  their  power,  would  serve  me 
as  Paul  and  Silas  were  served  in  Philippi  by  the 
masters  of  the  damsel  out  of  whom  they  cast  the 
spirit  of  divination.     But  we  are  in  a  free  country. 

Roman  Catholics,  from  this  man  and  his  miser- 
able system;  I   now  turn  to  you.     Read  the   ten 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  99 

letters  which  I  have  reviewed,  and  see  how  weak 
are  the  arguments  for  popery !  Read  the  sLx  letters 
addressed  to  me,  and  see  how  low  your  bishop 
can  descend  !  If  John  Huo-hes  is  the  Achilles  of 
popery  in  our  country,  what  must  the  soldiers  under 
him  be  ! !  And  will  you  longer  sustain  a  religion 
the  strong  objections  to  which  he  cannot  meet ;  and 
the  reasons  for  adherence  to  vvhich,  as  given  by 
himself,  are  not  strong  enough  to  hold  up  ihe 
spider's  most  attenuated  web  ?  Behold  him  twice 
coming  to  the  rescue  of  your  church,  and  twice 
turning  his  back  without  even  an  effort  to  spike  a 
single  gun  aimed  at  its  vitals  !  Can  the  system 
which  he.  cannot  defend  be  worthy  of  your  support  ? 
Can  the  captain  who  deserts  his  post  in  the  heat  of 
battle,  be  worthy  of  the  commission  he  bears  ? 

Read  his  ten  letters,  if  their  dullness  will  permit 
you,  and  examine  their  principles.  What  an  argu- 
ment for  a  religious  despotism  of  the  most  grinding 
and  enduring  character  !  The  pope  is  the  succes- 
sor of  Peter,  and  you  have  no  hope  of  heaven  but 
in  connection  with  the  pope  !  Be  as  good,  as  pious, 
as  charitable,  as  Godlike  as  you  may,  you  are  out 
of  the  way  of  life  unless  you  submit  to  the  pope, 
and  then  to  all  his  subalterns  !  You  have  no  right 
to  form  a.i  opinion  of  your  own  ;  tlie  pope,  bishops, 
and  priests  are  appointed  to  think  for  you  !  With- 
out a  license,  such  as  they  give  in  Ireland  for  sell- 
ing whisky,  you  have  no  riglit  to  read  the  Bible  ; 
the  priests  will  do  thai  for  you,  and  tell  you  what 


100  kirwan's  reply 

is  in  it  that  concerns  you  !  To  God  your  Father 
you  have  no  riglit  to  go  save  through  a  priestly  in- 
tercessor, vi'ho,  for  a  fee  to  suit  your  circumstances, 
will  transact  all  your  business  at  the  Court  of 
Heaven  !  All  you  do  you  must  tell  the  priest ; 
and  thus  you  give  him  a  power  over  you  by  which 
he  can  whip  you  into  the  traces  whenever  you  dare 
to  think  for  yourselves  !  If  the  letters  of  Bishop 
Hughes  are  true,  then  the  priests  of  the  papal 
church  are  a  close  corporation  with  the  pope  at 
their  head,  with  the  keys  of  life  and  death  in  their 
hands,  and  through  whom  alone  God  exercises 
spiritual  dominion  in  our  world  !  What  a  fearful 
despotism  is  this,  infinitely  more  oppressive  than 
any  civil  despotism  which  has  ever  cursed  the 
world  !  It  meets  you  at  your  entrance  into  life — 
it  dogs  you  through  every  step  of  your  earthly  pil- 
grimage— it  stands  by  you  at  the  bed  of  death, 
claiming  the  power  of  opening  heaven  to  your  soul 
when  it  escapes  from  its  clay  tabernacle,  or  of 
locking  it  up  in  hell  !  From  the  cradle  to  the 
grave  you  must  only  do  as  it  ordains  at  the  risk  of 
all  the  vials  of  its  wrath  !  And  this  is  popery  ; — 
yes,  popery  as  advocated  and  practised  in  the  city 
of  New- York  by  Bishop  Hughes !  With  what 
noble  consistency  can  he  raise  his  voice  in  Vaux- 
hall  against  the  oppression  of  Ireleind  by  England, 
and  subscribe  his  money  to  buy  a  shield  for  the 
back  of  the  sham-patriots,  who,  by  their  shameful 
blustering  and  cowardly  conduct,  have  made  Irish 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  101 

patriotism  a  subject  of  merriment  throughout  the 
world  : — and   then   vindicate    a   code   of  religious 
despotism  in  comparison  with  which  that  of  Russia 
is  freedom  ; — and  then  filch  from  the  pockets  of  the 
poor,   ignorant,    credulous,  but   noble-hearted   and 
generous  Irish,  the  money  they  have  earned  with 
the   sweat   of  their   brow,    to   purchase    for   them 
chains,  and    to   pay  priests  for   riveting   them  oa 
their  limbs  !     Roman  Catholics,  will  you  submit  to 
a  despotism  which  thus  degrades,  dupes,  and  robs 
you  ?     Irish  Roman  Catholics,  so  eager  to  burst  the 
cliains  with  which  England  has  bound  the  land  of 
our  fathers,  will  you  submit  to  wear  a  yoke  like 
this  ?     Sons  of  noble  sires,  whose  blood  and  bones 
fatten  and  whiten  every  field  in  Ireland  by  strug- 
gles to  break  the  British  yoke,  will  you,  in  a  land 
of  light  and  freedom,  like   Russian  serfs,  wear  a 
yoke  like  this  ?     Will  you  permit  a  close  priestly 
corporation,  without  any  sufficient  motive  save  to 
increase  their  corporate  property,   to  assume  over 
you  the  power  of  God — and  to  bind  to  their  girdle 
the  keys  of  heaven — to  enter  your  family  and  to 
regulate  your  meat  and  your  drink — if  a  servant  in 
a  Protestant  family,  to  place  you  there  as   a  spy, 
and  to  forbid  you  enjoying  its  religious  privileges — 
to  think  for  you — on  every  hand  to  surround  you 
with  infinitely  ramified  and  potent  influences,  which 
are  sleepless  in  their  efforts  to  keep  around  your 
neck  the  yoke  of  servitude,   and  to  prevent  your 
emancipation  into  that  liberty  with  which  Christ 

9* 


102  kirwan's  heply 

makes  his  people  free  ?  Thousands  in  this  land, 
and  tens  of  thousands  through  all  the  earth,  are 
casting  it  aside  as  too  heavy  longer  to  be  borne  ; 
will  not  all  of  you  do  the  same  ?  Will  you  be  con- 
tent to  be  slaves  in  a  country  of  freedom, — slaves 
to  papal  priests,  the  most  degrading  of  all  slavery — 
when  it  is  only  for  you  firmly  to  resolve  and  you 
are  at  once  spiritually  as  you  are  civilly  free  ? 
Fling  the  flag  of  your  spiritual  freedom  to  the  free 
winds  of  heaven,  and  let  your  watchwords  be  God, 
the  Bible,  Liberty,  and  unborn  generations  will 
rise  and  call  you  blessed. 

Irish  Roman  Catholics,  I  am  not  so  destitute  of 
all  sympathies  with  you,  and  with  our  fatherland 
beyond  the  waves  of  the  Atlantic,  as  Bishop  Hughes 
would  make  you  believe.  I  sympathize  with  you 
here  in  that  degradation  to  which  tlie  religion  of  the 
priest  has  reduced  you.  I  deeply  sympathize  with 
our  lovely  country  at  home  and  our  noble  country- 
men, so  deeply  degraded,  and  mainly  by  the  same 
cause.  I  renewedly  charge  upon  popery  the  low 
social  level  to  which  Ireland  has  been  reduced,  and 
the  social  degradation  of  her  children  in  all  the 
lands  of  their  dispersion.  It  is  popery  that  has 
made  her  sons  and  daughters,  in  so  many  instances, 
hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water.  And  my 
sympathies  with  you  and  for  you,  more  than  all 
other  causes,  have  given  existence  to  these  letters. 
As  I  early  predicted,  the  bishop  rings  changes  on 
my  apostacy — charges  me  with  desertion — leaves 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  103 

the  argument  for  the  man — and  in  every  way,  save 
by  reason  and  argument,  seeks  to  vilify  my  name, 
so  as  to  diminish  my  influence  with  you.  In  this 
he  is  joined  by  his  priests.  But  this  is  simply  the 
conspiracy  of  the  wolves,  ravening  the  fold  to  induce 
the  sheep  to  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  the  voice  of  the  shep- 
herd who  sounds  the  alarm.  Their  craft  is  in  dan- 
ger, and  hence  their  wrath.  I  here  assert  before 
heaven  and  earth,  that  you  are  grievously  imposed 
upon  by  your  priests — that  for  the  sake  of  your 
money  they  daily  practice  upon  you  impositions  such 
as  should  brand  them  as  impostors — that  they  traffic 
in  souls,  and  make  a  gain  of  godliness,  and  that  instead 
of  your  veneration  they  are  worthy  only  of  your  re- 
jection. And  for  the  evidence  of  all  this  I  need  only 
point  you  to  the  moneys  which  they  draw  from  you 
by  their  senseless  masses,  by  their  extreme  unctions, 
by  their  charms,  and  relics,  and  penances,  and  pur- 
gatorial deliverances,  and  by  the  thousand  and  one 
ways  in  which  they  show  their  sympathy  for  the 
sheep  by  fleecing  them  of  their  wool.  And  hence 
the  hue  and  cry  against  me  by  your  priests,  because 
I  plainly  and  fearlessly  tell  you  of  these  things. 

Nor  am  I,  Roman  Catholics,  the  profane  infidel 
which  your  bishop  would  make  me  out  to  be.  If 
there  were  no  alternative  for  me  but  to  believe  what 
he  teaches,  I  would  be  again  compelled  to  shoot  the 
gulf  of  infidelity,  and  to  build  my  hopes  for  the  fu. 
ture  upon  the  dim  twilight  instructions  of  natural 
religion.     What  would  I  not  believe  sooner  than 


104  kirwan's  reply 

that  man  can  create  God  !  But  even  were  I  an  in- 
fidel, vulgar  as  Paine,  bitter  as  Voltaire,  plausible  as 
Gibbon,  would  that  be  any  reason  why  my  objec- 
tions to  popery  should  not  be  answered  ?  Did  not 
Porteus  answer  Paine  ?  Did  not  Campbell  confute 
Hume  ?  And  even  if  an  infidel,  why  should  not 
Bishop  Hughes  answer  my  objections  ?  The  rea- 
son is  not  in  my  infidelity,  but  in  his  inability.  He 
is  unable  to  answer  them.  But  I  am  not  an  in- 
fidel. I  believe  in  the  Bible.  I  believe  in  the  reli- 
gion of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  the  source  of  my  comforts 
here,  and  the  foundation  of  all  my  hopes  for  tne 
future.  I  believe  in  the  divinity,  the  vicarious  atone- 
ment of  Jesus  Christ ;  and  in  the  efiicacy  of  that 
atonement  to  save  all,  without  money  and  without 
price,  who  rest  solely  upon  it.  "  He  that  believetb 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  if  there  was  not  a  pope 
or  priest  upon  earth,  "  shall  be  saved."  This  is 
my  faith  ;  and  it  is  to  this  simple,  efficacious  faith — 
the  faith  of  the  prophets,  apostles,  martyrs,  fathers, 
confessors  of  all  ages  and  of  all  countries — of  the 
true  Catholic  church  in  all  its  ministers  and  mem- 
bers, that,  in  my  soul,  I  desire  to  win  you. 

Truth,  and  not  mitres,  crosses,  unmeaning  cere- 
monies, priestly  vestments,  solemn  farces,  is  the 
only  thing  worthy  of  your  love  and  reverence.  Buy 
the  truth  and  sell  it  not.  Dig  for  it  as  for  hid  trea- 
sures. This  is  the  pearl  of  great  price  ;  and,  if 
necessary,  sell  all  that  you  possess  to  purchase  it. 
Popery  is  the  religion  of  children,  of  low  civiliza- 


TO    BISHOP    HUGHES.  105 

tion— Christianity  is  the  religion  of  men,  and  of 
high  civilization,  where  the  virtues  and  graces  most 
flourish.  Dare  to  be  Christians.  Your  attachment 
to  popery  only  benefits  the  priest ;  Christianity  will 
enrich  yourselves.  Dare  to  be  Christians.  The 
night  is  far  spent ;  the  day  is  at  hand.  O  be  chil- 
dren of  the  day.  Fear  God,  and  the-n  the  wrath  of 
the  pnest  inspires  no  more  terror  than  do  the  gentle 
whisperings  of  the  evening  zephyr. 

Praying  with  all  prayer  for  your  deliverance 
from  the  degrading  and  grinding  despotism  of  popery, 
and  for  your  full  emancipation  into  the  glorious 
liberty  of  the  gospel,  I  am,  with  all  the  sympathies 
of  my  Irish  nature, 

Yours, 

KiRWAN. 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


0035519223 


-^^ 


W 


'^r#^^ 


w# 


^•*W 


.//!V 


MM  I  A    ino^ 


1^' 


